If X, then Y?

Author: Wrick-It-Ralph

Posts

Total: 71
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
While those descriptions somewhat make sense.
Win/Win for 4th time on something tho I cant recall them all because your ego so often blocks out rational, logical common sense.

  It seems that their divisions are arbitrary,  I don't see why gravity and dark energy need their own metaphysical space.
Nore have you ever asked for why to much of anything Ive presented. Ego based mental blockage. Gotta run

  that makes your definitions interchangeable and vacuous.
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I don't see why gravity and dark energy need their own metaphysical space. 
And you have never asked before.  Your not asking above either. Ego.

1} you dont seem to grasp that gravity and dark energy are opposite phenomena that is well documented since the discovery dark energy its association with a cosmological constant,  irrespective of not being quantised or quantified, ergo metapysical-4,
...note Ive make clear for some years now that they are also diametric opposites but your ego also blocks those ideas as presented...

2} gravitational phenomena has been well documented since Netwons days, irrespective of never ever being quantized or quantified, ergo metaphysical-3.

3} dicitonary words often have differrent definitions ergo enumeration to make those distinctions as Ive done with you 3 kinds/types of metaphysical, but again your ego only throws mental based blockages to all of my statements above and else where at DArt since day one here as well as many other forums for at least 5 years now.

that makes your definitions interchangeable and vacuous.
Hot air false/bogus claims. Ditto the above when you can get beyond{ meta } W-Ralphs ego blockages.





secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.

It would depend.  You say "guides" as if we have a free will, but he simply imposes on it when it goes against his plan.  Small difference.

If you're saying that he determines all of our actions in advanced, then I agree. 
I believe the underline and emboldened section is enough to clear up which of the two positions I am referring to.

I do understand that it is not a position universally held by all theists but I have certainly heard theists claim both the all encompassing plan and freewill.
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I would agree that it's a popular position by theist.  But there are ways to explain it that are logically coherent, although the soundness is in question since they need many bold claims to support it. 

They have to assume that god both made us with free will and then also imposed on it which effectively obsoleted the need for free will.  Doesn't make much sense.  But it is technically possible if all the assumptions it implies were also true. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
So what your saying is that it would be possible for some god(s) to attribute us with freewill but then to disallow the use of said freewill? I suppose that is technically possibke but I'm not sure what distinguishes that from simply having no freewill, especially in practice terms.
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Excellent observation. 


I should clarify that it's only hypothetically possible.  I'm not saying it's objectively verifiable. 


The only real distinguishing feature would be that people would have free will in their mind, but wouldn't be able to exercise it in reality.  This is problematic because we should be able to detect as much in real life.  But one could always throw another assumption in and say that we don't experience it because it's one of god's limitless superpowers.  

Generally speaking, from an outsider's perspective.  Free will under control would probably look exactly like no free will at all. 


mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.
That S-Martin is correct on the free will issue, is not new news.

All occupied space existence is deterministic cause and effect and that includes metaphysical-1, spirit-of-intent.

All is predestined to occur and we can never ever quantise, quantify ergo we can never ever map the finite whole set of inter-relationships that occur with Universe with any time period irresepetive of the lenght of that time period.

So many around here want to create mystically invalidated conclusions based on mythical ---if not specific religious belief systems....that have not basis in reality/physical{ Observed Time .../\/\/..... }.

Why is that? Because it is the lazy{ easy } way to approach truth and not a vigorous dissection of rational, logical common sense based on Observed TIme reality.

To find and know some truths takes effort.



Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
there no data
Not necassarily true. I would call the millions of experiences some kind of data. Just not one science likes. And in that sense, this is a sweeping generalization. Unless of course, you're talking about peer reviewed data... which of course there isn't. However, i would say there is more data than a scientific idea about multi-verses bc of the observational evidence. 

I'm ambivalent about "ghosts." I mean, it depends on what we are talking about. Are there other entities that can manifest to this world without being detectable to the human eye? Maybe. I've had an experience or two of something that was unseen. However, this brings me to the next thing i noticed you say:

Couldn't they exist, but all of your rules are inaccurate? 
I agree with you. I'm not much for trying to defining metaphysical phenomena and saying "this is what it is." However, from what people report, or an experience you may have had... you can draw some conclusions. For instance you can say "something unseen was able to follow my directions and manipulate an object." If it can follow directions and do that... we can at least say it has some kind of intelligence. So, you can draw some conclusions, but i agree that we can't just flat out say... it's this. Which brings us to your OP:

If ghosts existed, then would we be able to detect them? 
I have a couple ideas, if they exist, why they would be elusive. But not knowing what they are, i have to sort of generalize. For instance, what if ghosts are other intelligent beings from other realities. Think of it as some entity from a magical universe where there are reality jumpers. I would think if they do come here they would only be able to in energy form. Bc, if they physically manifest into our reality... they would then be bound by our physical laws. Possibly losing their abilities. This can explain ghost sightings, hauntings, crap, even aliens. That general idea applies to basically anything else like it being dead humans. Second, what if they can only interact with this world through us. Either ghosts of humans or other dimensional beings. This one kinda has a hole in it however bc there are object manipulation experiences, but i would assume if they can interact with us, again through some sort of energy we don't know of... maybe that energy can also interact with other particles to the point of making sounds or moving objects. 

I wouldn't say there is no evidence bc these things do happen. Of course there are many liars out there, even some just mentally sick... but i doubt every account is by someone that's faking it or deluded. So i personally think somethings going on... and when there is such a large portion of our universe we call dark and have no clue what it is... i think these entities can possibly be operating on some level that's even more mysterious than dark energy. We are still infants in our scientific knowledge... so science's data should not be the point of reference. The point of reference in this matter should be the experiences people are reporting. That data exists.  
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Outplayz
Well there's plenty of things that exist that aren't detectable to the human eye.  But we don't call them ghost. 


Testimony is data.  But the testimony needs to add up the right way and it doesn't.   Even if it did, we then need other methods to verify the accuracy of the testimony.  So where's the extra factor? 


Okay so you make generalized assumptions based off testimony.  That's not the worst thing you could possibly do I guess.  But how do you know which testimony to disregard for these rules?  It seems like we would need an objective way to ground these rules the same way we would in physics.  You might say that modern science can't observe these things.  But once we could observe them, we would most definitely use science to do it because it's just the best way. 


So ghost don't want to manifest because they might stop being ghost?  Maybe.  Seems like a stretch.  Natural laws don't change because they're not intrinsic things.   They're a descriptive truth based on relative interactions of things in the cosmos.  So I could get behind the idea of ghost physics even if it's only hypothetically.  However,  I see no reason to suspect that ghost would be able to change their natural laws, maybe their own bodies.  In that case it would appear identical to changing laws but a lot more plausible. 

Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
But we don't call them ghost. 

Of course. I think we call something a ghost when 1) it appears to look like a human; or 2) appears to have human characteristics like intelligence. But who knows... dark energy might be the brain matter of a god... so that would be a ghost in some way. However, i think for the most part, the two reasons above are why people call things ghosts. 

we then need other methods to verify the accuracy of the testimony
We do need one... bc Etrnl made a good point: If these entities are intelligent, then they aren't something repeatable. You can't just ask a ghost to appear on demand. Or, you can't be certain of when they come here. Like the reality jumpers idea... how can you test if say Loki is popping in every once and awhile to look at our world, or every here and there messing with some random person he wants to mess with? There is no pattern to that other than what Loki wants to do. Our current scientific method is just not equipped enough yet. 

But how do you know which testimony to disregard for these rules?
This is a problem. Humans are greedy, liars, and just petty. The waters are muddied. That's why i hope science comes up with something. Bc that is the only way we can shut these liars up... just like how in my opinion science has largely shut up certain religions... that is the only way we will get closer to the truth. I'm not a science hater by any means... I just wish science took these topics a little more seriously. Bc even within that field there are liars, greedy a-holes... actually, i think greed and fame is taking over science which is a bad thing in regards to getting to metaphysical ideas. The push is for technology, not spiritual knowledge. However, i have a theory that technology will eventually get us to spiritual knowledge... for maybe the day we fully understand consciousness and how to create sentient AI... will also be the day we get closer to a metaphysical platform... it's just a waiting game.  

However,  I see no reason to suspect that ghost would be able to change their natural laws, maybe their own bodies.
It's just a generalized hypothetical to make that point. I got it from the idea that if you die and becoming incorporeal... if you want to manifest back as a corporeal being you have to manifest back into reality. Sorta got the idea from reincarnation and the like. Plus, i also think whatever is in our reality (physically) has to follow our realities rules... but of course i only know our present rules. What can they be in a million years... who knows. Maybe we'll become reality jumpers. 

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Outplayz
By those two standards, we could call chimps ghosts.  



I'll tell you the same thing I told him.  In order for Loki to do that.  He necessarily would not be able to know what he will be popping into.  So there will factors out of his control that could contribute to him being spotted and in the modern world, it would basically be a guarantee that he get caught. 



why do you assume that scientists don't take it seriously?  Scientists don't go there because there's no evidence.  That's not the same as just be dismissive.   Do you expect science to vigorously test for Unicorns when they're already quantifying every conceivable piece of reality they can find and see no unicorns? 


Well it's not so much that we follow the rules of our reality.  It's more like the rules are all determined by interactions.  So your "rules"  depend on what you can and can't interact with at any given moment.  That's why interaction is necessary to perceive reality.  This is the problem with the blinking ghost.  the ghost would have to be able to change it's physics some how.  But this wouldn't be a smooth super accurate process, this would be slow and sloppy and people would see ghosts a like the same way we see neutrinos when they happen across the right forces even though that we are normally not able to detect them in any possible way. 
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
it would basically be a guarantee that he get caught.
1) in that example we're talking about Loki... a god. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't make mistakes. 2) I don't know what this entity is... but if it's able to jump realities, i would think it knows a little more than we do. 3) if they can only manifest here as an energy we can't detect, then we'll never detect it until we figure out the means they come here. I'm making these up, but i'm going off what means can it happen to where there aren't mistakes and they remain undetected. It isn't inconceivable. We can sorta rule out what you're saying however, sure... there aren't drunk ghosts that are sloppy. That seems to not be a case. But maybe it is and the humans that caught it weren't suppose to... but again, if it's through a means we haven't been able to detect or even know about... then even drunk ghosts will be elusive. 

why do you assume that scientists don't take it seriously?
You keep saying there is no evidence... how do you know that?

In regards to this question... tell me how many scientists will get a grant, for the long term, to fully study only metaphysical phenomena. Now, tell me how many scientists will get a grant to create AI. Maybe i used the wrong word, i'm sure there are many scientists that do take it seriously... however, i do not think metaphysical phenomena is on the front lines in a large enough way as something more tangible that results in profits. Scientists want grants, they want fame, they want to have their work in journals... do you think that would be achievable if one said i'm trying to study inter-dimensional beings? Or do you think most of the community would laugh at said person? These people are stuck in their own dogmas and greed... they are just humans after all. And, if you are going to pull the no evidence card... i simply disagree. I think it's negligent and actually pretty humanly arrogant to say there is no evidence. And that's not directed at you... it's people that think they are the shit bc they are scientists so they can dismiss something when they don't even understand it. My hate like i said isn't' for science... i highly dislike certain humans. Mainly those telling me to erase an entire belief/suspicion bc they are "smart" and know. That sounds just as bad as a religious zealot to me.

same way we see neutrinos
Like i said, it may not be as easy as that... and obviously, it appears not to be as easy as that. We have no idea how they do this, if they do it at all. Whatever it is seems to be elusive. But there is enough testimony to at the very least suspect something more is going on. Everything else you said, perceptions, is what we are bound by... that is all this reality stuff. A being that comes from a reality that follows totally different laws wouldn't follow that; hence, why i am giving the idea it can't fully manifest physically. But maybe there is a constant we can find that exists in every reality. Maybe it's dark energy, and if so... maybe that's why they're invisible. We just can't know until our knowledge is further than the low percent of knowledge (of everything) we have presently. 
  
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
So the reason I call it speculation, is because we have no data for it. So that means we're just hypothesizing how a ghost could possibly behave or what rules of physics do or don't apply and what metaphysical rules do that have that we may not know about.  Like I said, there's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as we understand that you don't know it well enough to say it's true. 
There is plenty of data for it just not within the scientific way of examining our physical world. You have to move into the study that correlates with the nature of spirituality. This ties in with experiential knowledge and testimonial evidence. All the things I listed prior. 
The problem here is that you keep saying X thing about ghost as if it's an objective fact.  I would rather we say what a ghost "might" be like rather than plainly stating it to be the case.
A ghost is just a spirit, ghosts and spirits have been known and established for a long, long time. So there is no reason to speculate, coupled with my own encounters I use cross examination to confirm what I've observed. No "might" necessary there are plenty of facts and evidence. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to articulate anything.
Now if you're saying it that way because you know for sure that ghosts exist, then we have to stop and answer a critical question before I accept any of that.....   How do you know all these things you say about ghost are actually true? 
Because number one I've actually seen them so I know what they look like and how they move, number two there's more evidence than I could ever possibly sift through to cross reference, as well religious sources have the descriptions and anatomy of how it operates. Either way we have my own experience and then supported by the evidence that is an abundance.   
I don't necessarily asking if you know how ghost exist, but rather how you know all these weird and specific rules about them.
Because I take what I know about the soul, about the nature of consciousness and the evidence we have along with my own sightings and put all the logic and evidence together. Bam, you have a fact.
Couldn't they exist, but all of your rules are inaccurate?
What rules? I was just articulating the nature of our soul and the nature of the subtle bodies and how it all works and how ghosts are even viable being observed. These are illustrations and explanations not rules.

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
A lot of people aren't even familiar with what constitutes as evidence so let me just expose that for ya so you're more careful about what you say there is no evidence for. And again, we're dealing with a nature that transcends the physical sense perception and that is paramount in what you need to know because you have to have a source that correlates with its nature. But yes, there is more evidence for spirituality and spiritual experiences that any other topic. Notice how none of the following definitions contradict spiritual experiences and sightings as evidence...including NDE's. 

EVIDENCE-
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
"something that furnishes proof : testimony"
"one who voluntarily confesses and testifies"
" is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak."
" Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."
"In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired."

TESTIMONY
"evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something."
"In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter."
"In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact."
" Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof."
" A formal declaration of truth or fact "
"a testimony is known as statements that are based on personal experience or personal knowledge."

WITNESS
"evidence; proof."
"have knowledge of (an event or change) from personal observation or experience."
"attestation of a fact or event : testimony"
" one that gives evidence"
"one who has personal knowledge of something"
"something serving as evidence or proof"
" someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest."
" provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written"

PROOF
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
"the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"
"In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature, law obtaining its evidence from witnesses and forensic investigation, and so on.".
That "and so on" includes.... spirituality obtaining it's evidence from religious sources and testimonial evidence. Because you have to go to the source that correlates with that nature. 

TESTIMINIAL EVIDENCE
" National Forensic Science Technology Center states that evidence is categorized as either testimonial or physical."
"Testimonial evidence might be used to prove or disprove several different things."

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Near-death experiences (NDEs) (not including ghost encounters and spiritual experiences) are reported by an estimated 200,000 Americans a year, and studies around the world suggest NDEs are a common human experience. They have been recorded in the folklore of many cultures, and reported by people from diverse backgrounds and in widely varying circumstances.
13 million Americans, or 5 percent of the nation’s population, had experienced an NDE as of 1992, according to a 1992 Gallup poll cited by the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation.
774 NDEs per day are experienced in the United States, according to the same poll. That means another 6 million or so Americans may have had NDEs since the 1992 poll, raising the number of Americans who have had an NDE from 13 million to 19 million.


Why should there be such a denial that the soul (consciousness) exists independent of the human body in the face of blatant evidence? 

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.
Suppose the plan contained branch points to allow for choices?  The plan would end up having a lot of unused paths, but 'wasteful' is not the same as 'logically incoherent'!   Indeed, if the mulitiverse theory holds up then the unused branches wouldn't be wasted...in fact they'd be neccessary!

Note: I don't put that forward as a serious possibility.  :)



secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Wasteful is not the same as logically incoherent. Good point.
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Testimony is data
False. Testimony is like navals and buttholes, every person has one irrespective truth being involved.
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Not false.  Testimony is data.  It might not be great data.  But it's data nonetheless.  


Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
When I spoke of speculation.  I was specifically talking about the rules that you said ghost have to abide by.  Not necessarily the rest of it.  I understand that you base them off of testimony.  but it's still speculation.  


Okay, I have to disagree strongly here.  Ghost and spirits have not been known for any amount of time.  This is why I draw the line at speculation.  If ghosts were known, then we'd have actual data to confirm them instead of data to confirm that people think they might have sighted them.   I'm not trying to poke fun at you when I say this, but you're being intellectually lazy when you do that.  If you want people to take your claims seriously, you need to make sure your evidence is rigorous and leads you through ever step.  When you skip a step like that, you create a non sequitur and under mind your claims. 


Well you can't say that you've seen a ghost because you don't have anything objective to compare it to.  You seen something and you don't know what it is so you call it a ghost because it seems to fit the bill.  While what you seen might have actually been seen by you, that doesn't make it a ghost.  What if it was just something that looked like a ghost, but really it was some other incorporeal being.  What if it wasn't a being at all?  What if you just witnessed dark matter for a moment?  I mean, if we're assuming that unseen things can be seen sometimes then why does it have to be a ghost?  It could be a lot of things that we normally don't see.  Maybe it was a bundle of neutrinos(those actually can blink in and out of observation).   What if it was a hole to another dimension?  This is why I say you need to not skip steps.  You're leaving the door open for vacuity. 



Well when I said rules, I was talking about natural laws.  Which are just descriptions.  Since ghosts don't have solid evidence behind them, we have no descriptions to go off of.  Therefore, any "rule"  that you profess has no justification for being right.  At best, it's just your hypothesis. 



So it's not that people don't understand what evidence is.  But when people ask for evidence, there's a contextual implication that they want the evidence to be sufficient to either justify the claim or at least send people on the right path.  Testimony accomplishes neither of these things.   Technically, just about anything could be evidence.  That's not the problem.  You need sufficient evidence. 




mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Not false.  Testimony is data.  It might not be great data.  But it's data nonetheless.
Testimony is no differrrent than opinion that may or may not involve facts and truth and like navals and  buttholes, everyone has one.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If pigs could fly then having high quality windshield wiper fluid would take on a new importance.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Fun facts
Keeping in mind that it's assumed "most" people would not come forward with ghost sightings and or spiritual encounters fearing being ridiculed the numbers could be quite higher. As for the ones that do confess here are some shocking statistics.

"There have been an indeterminate number of ghost sightings reported in history worldwide. References to ghosts exist since the time of the ancient Mesopotamian civilization, and up to the present almost all cultures in all countries believe in the existence of ghosts." (Spirits)

"18% of Americans say they’ve seen a ghost"
 "Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (18%) say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey. An even greater share – 29% – say they have felt in touch with someone who has already died."
"most American adults in the 21st Century say that they believe in life after death"


"According to the survey, a whopping 60% of people believe that they have seen a ghost."

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
It's like we're one mind :) 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
My mom used to claim to see ghosts.  She also claimed that she had dreams about people before they died.  The funny thing is how there was always a more logical explanation and she always jumped to the supernatural one first.  I thought nothing of this as a kid, and even claimed to have strange things happen to me as well.  When I got older, I was able to explain all of it with ease. 

It wasn't spirits talking to me.  It was me being indoctrinated and seeing what I wanted to see. 
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Okay, I have to disagree strongly here.  Ghost and spirits have not been known for any amount of time.  This is why I draw the line at speculation.  If ghosts were known, then we'd have actual data to confirm them instead of data to confirm that people think they might have sighted them.   I'm not trying to poke fun at you when I say this, but you're being intellectually lazy when you do that.  If you want people to take your claims seriously, you need to make sure your evidence is rigorous and leads you through ever step.  When you skip a step like that, you create a non sequitur and under mind your claims.
I'm not trying to poke fun at you but I'm using testimonial evidence to simply show there IS evidence I'm not doing anymore than that with the actual testimonies, understood? I'm not using them to try and prove anything to you other than there is an abundance of first hand evidence. Once you admit there is evidence then that is all that I was looking for.

Yes, ghosts and spirits HAVE been known for a long time, perhaps as long as humans have been on earth. They are both fully described and articulated in religion and first hand encounters. To deny this is just silly, perhaps too simple for you to comprehend. It's no longer speculation when you have millions of people, religions (which study the supernatural) and endless literature at your disposal to learn from. Including my own encounters all I have to do is examine the sources that claim the same experience and voila, confirmed data, no speculation needed because the evidence IS there. Now I have my own observation along with the observations of many others. Why does that seem to go over your head? is it because you have a presumption that this is all just absurd?

I'm not being lazy about the data by any means, I'm also making sure you fully understand the nature of a spirit (ghost), the nature of spirituality and Theism. It's not the same way we would observe something like we would with a physical phenomenon, so the immediate need for materialists to be able to "demonstrate" in a lab and for it to be repeatable is not an option. Since ghost sightings and encounters with spirits are of the spiritual aspect of our experience we no longer have that frame of observation (scientific method)….so what are we left with? we are left with religion, which studies that nature... and we are left with testimonial evidence which is a persons first hand witness. And with the amount of data we have regarding spirits it's no longer lazy when you've put the time I have in examining sources. Actually that's quite an insult, I'm one of the few people who could sit here and answer any question you have about souls and spirits, ghosts, God, the after life ect ect…
I'll get to the rest of the post as I have time today, it's unfortunate though most people have too many preconceived ideas and doubts about this type of discussion for there ever to be any kind of middle ground found. And BTW the people that have sighted them are the very ones you want to collect data from. 

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
When I spoke of speculation.  I was specifically talking about the rules that you said ghost have to abide by.  Not necessarily the rest of it. 
Again, not rules, what rules did I say? The only thing I recall explaining was the nature of the subtle body (spirit body). It should be pretty obvious that a ghost has limited interaction in this world without a physical body. This speculation thing you need to get a grip on. You need to understand the subtle body if you want to make sense of ghost sightings, why and how they can exist and why this even happens at all. If you're not interested I have no idea why you created the topic, unless you thought your OP was bullet proof you should be looking for answers and insights to why ghosts exist and what they are.
I understand that you base them off of testimony.  but it's still speculation. 
Lol, IF I was just basing it off OTHERS testimonies maybe, but that's not what I'm doing is it? did you forget about the cross referencing part?

Cross examination
"the formal interrogation of a witness called by the other party in a court of law to challenge or extend testimony already given."

Cross referencing
"a notation or direction at one place (as in a book or filing system) to pertinent information at another place"
"to research, verify, or organize by means of cross-references"

Let me be very clear, there is nothing inconclusive about my knowledge and understanding of spirits. I have both my own witness and the witness of many others.Try asking questions instead of asserting things. Questions result in answers and answers result in understanding. You asked one question at the beginning and then you stopped lol, leading me to believe you were never really interested more than you were just mocking. 

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Well you can't say that you've seen a ghost because you don't have anything objective to compare it to. 
Should I actually entertain this nonsense lol? come on dude, you can't be serious right now.
You seen something and you don't know what it is so you call it a ghost because it seems to fit the bill.
OMG, why don't you try asking questions instead of asserting things? you seriously think I don't know that when I see a spirit I saw a spirit? that's a bold assertion there.
 While what you seen might have actually been seen by you, that doesn't make it a ghost.  What if it was just something that looked like a ghost, but really it was some other incorporeal being.  What if it wasn't a being at all?
Oh wow a question what do ya know! but not really a sincere question, first you're already doubting what I observed before you asked me. Try again without the nonsense before it. In other words, just be courteous.
What if you just witnessed dark matter for a moment?  I mean, if we're assuming that unseen things can be seen sometimes then why does it have to be a ghost?  It could be a lot of things that we normally don't see. 
Because number one they were beings, not objects and not shadows, not a dream and not something out of the corner of my eyes. I saw their features and I saw them move, I observed the subtle forms they were in. I saw them directly, one was about ten feet in front of me, I really don't call them "ghosts" they are souls, beings, spirits.... They look just like people describe them, no doubts about it. Actually I've had many spiritual encounters all different types not just seeing ghosts.
Maybe it was a bundle of neutrinos(those actually can blink in and out of observation).   What if it was a hole to another dimension?  This is why I say you need to not skip steps.  You're leaving the door open for vacuity.
I explained all of this I never skipped any steps bro, did you read anything I wrote? they are from another dimension, but they still have an energetic spirit body.....I explained how all of that works, perhaps go back and read because they aren't rules they are how the subtle body operates. If you want go look up the term yourself.
Well when I said rules, I was talking about natural laws.  Which are just descriptions.  Since ghosts don't have solid evidence behind them, we have no descriptions to go off of.  Therefore, any "rule"  that you profess has no justification for being right.  At best, it's just your hypothesis.
That's absolutely absurd, and really the problem with this conversation so far. You come across to me as a pretty objective, rational person, only when you move into the spiritual arena all that flies out the window.
So it's not that people don't understand what evidence is.  But when people ask for evidence, there's a contextual implication that they want the evidence to be sufficient to either justify the claim or at least send people on the right path.  Testimony accomplishes neither of these things.   Technically, just about anything could be evidence.  That's not the problem.  You need sufficient evidence.
Actually it was your assertion there was no evidence, and as of right now that's what I have been challenging to put you on the right path, after that I challenge you with my own observations to answer all your objections sufficiently but you must allow me to do that and stop doubting it. 



EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
My mom used to claim to see ghosts. 
One out of five people have seen ghosts, perhaps much more than that.
She also claimed that she had dreams about people before they died.  The funny thing is how there was always a more logical explanation and she always jumped to the supernatural one first. 
So there's a more logical explanation than the fact that your mom (assuming you trust your own mom) actually saw a ghost and had strong intuition about other people? maybe you are just being biased? you're mom obviously jumped to the supernatural first because I'm guessing she knew the difference between something material and something spiritual.
I thought nothing of this as a kid, and even claimed to have strange things happen to me as well.  When I got older, I was able to explain all of it with ease.
You mean you were able to blow it off with ease? I don't doubt that at all.
It wasn't spirits talking to me.  It was me being indoctrinated and seeing what I wanted to see.
It has nothing to do with what people "want" to see, when I saw them that was the furthest thing on my mind, I did absolutely nothing to instigate anything and your mom didn't either and actually I had no idea they could be seen by average people. This is something we all must face, as I said we are all leaving the physical body and you will see first hand what a subtle body is. Or, you can ask questions and understand it right now, perhaps even experience it.

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Again, not rules, what rules did I say?

You said ghost can choose when to be visible.  You might not call it a rule, but that's effectively what it is. 

OMG, why don't you try asking questions instead of asserting things? you seriously think I don't know that when I see a spirit I saw a spirit? that's a bold assertion there.
Yes, that is seriously what I think.  All you know is that you saw something.  So you either named it a Spirit or you called it a Spirit because it met some standard for what you or other people might consider a spirit.  Either way, this doesn't prove that it was a spirit nor does it mean that you know it's a spirit.  You're hypothesizing that it's a spirit, there's a difference. 


Oh wow a question what do ya know! but not really a sincere question, first you're already doubting what I observed before you asked me. Try again without the nonsense before it. In other words, just be courteous.
The only one being insincere is you.  How about you drop the attitude and answer or don't.   You don't get to tell me my questions aren't sincere.  My question is a question and if you have a good answer, then it doesn't matter. 


Because number one they were beings, not objects and not shadows,
That's a claim.  how do you know they were beings? 


I explained all of this I never skipped any steps bro, did you read anything I wrote?
You gain your whole explanation yes.  That doesn't mean your explanation was complete.  You go straight from unidentified object to ghost without any in between.  You're not ruling out the other possibilities. 

That's absolutely absurd, and really the problem with this conversation so far. You come across to me as a pretty objective, rational person, only when you move into the spiritual arena all that flies out the window.
That funny, because I would say that about you actually.  You keep that supernatural in a box of special pleading.  You say "physics makes sense.... accept when it doesn't in case X"   It's not logical.   Between the two of us.  I'm the one who's beliefs are consistent.  


Actually it was your assertion there was no evidence, and as of right now that's what I have been challenging to put you on the right path, after that I challenge you with my own observations to answer all your objections sufficiently but you must allow me to do that and stop doubting it. 
Cool.  If that's the case.  Then what do you have that's not testimony?