True ghost tales

[Magical Realist]

Both of you are using arguments from incredulity---that because you don't understand ghosts, or that because they don't behave like you expect them to, therefore they don't exist. Why should what you expect of a ghost be a criteria for it being at all? That doesn't make sense.

The problem with you accusing others of an argument from incredulity is that you must also be guilty of it. An argument from incredulity is BOTH that the incredible must be false AND that the obvious must be true. You are claiming that the obvious must be true. But like any argument from incredulity, you fail to eliminate the possibility that some occurrence could seem obvious yet have other explanations.

OTOH, we are not denying that any of these occurrences happened. We are actually stating the oppose of an argument from incredulity. We are saying they DID happen and are NOT incredible. Where we would likely agree that sufficient evidence would lead us to believe in ghosts, you do not seem willing or capable of admitting the possibility that these occurrences could be mundane or otherwise aberrant perceptions.


Until you do, you are just making the parent fallacy of argument from ignorance, where if something cannot be proven false, it is assumed true. But in reality, things can only be proven true (nothing but mathematics can actually be proven false), so the burden of proof rests with you.

And the dearth of proof speaks volumes.

Wrong. You are both using the argument from incredulity. "Why don't ghosts unlock doors?" "Why don't ghosts hit windows with thrown objects?" "Why don't ghosts disturb bar patrons?" It's not even a very good argument from incredulity in that you don't even know they DON'T do these things. It is simply denying ghosts because you are ignorant of the behavior of ghosts. Why don't you research the cases and find out if ghosts actually do these things? Oh..right. Better to spout fallacious claims based on total ignorance.

[Syne]

No, it's because we think all these things have mundane causes.

And you can't even manage to admit some of them may not be ghosts.

If you can't see the difference, you're a lost cause.

[Magical Realist]

No, it's because we think all these things have mundane causes.

And you can't even manage to admit some of them may not be ghosts.

If you can't see the difference, you're a lost cause.

What's the mundane cause of shot glass flying off the bar and shattering against the wall?

[Zinjanthropos]

Inanimate ghosts would fascinate me more than Casperesque apparitions. Take the Flying Dutchman" boat for instance. It didn't die in a previous life and for that matter neither did the clothes ghosts are sometimes seen in. If you believe ghosts are real then you would have to think both animate and inanimate ghosts come from the same source and there's nothing that cannot be a ghost. Everything is fair game. Who has seen the Twin Towers since they went down? I would wager somebody has. I would like to see the ghost of the star that went nova prior to our solar system forming, where is that rascal?.

[Magical Realist]

Inanimate ghosts would fascinate me more than Casperesque apparitions. Take the Flying Dutchman" boat for instance. It didn't die in a previous life and for that matter neither did the clothes ghosts are sometimes seen in. If you believe ghosts are real then you would have to think both animate and inanimate ghosts come from the same source and there's nothing that cannot be a ghost. Everything is fair game. Who has seen the Twin Towers since they went down? I would wager somebody has. I would like to see the ghost of the star that went nova prior to our solar system forming, where is that rascal?.

So because noone sees ghosts of inanimate objects that you know of, therefore ghosts don't exist. No...that doesn't follow at all. I saw a paranormal show once that had a claim of guests seeing a fire in the fireplace in a haunted castle room. There are other accounts of ghosts in cars, ghost trains, and ghost gun shots. Apparently there is more to ghosts than you know of.

[Leigha]

Something interesting to read - http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/587308-h...gle.com%2F

I kind of view alleged ''paranormal activity'' like I do religion - why are some people hard pressed to prove their beliefs to others? If I saw a ghost, and told someone of the experience and he/she didn't believe me, so be it. If I felt convicted by the experience, then that's all that matters. Does the validity of the experience dissipate because no one believes the ''ghost hunter?'' So, if you have had encounters with the paranormal, there will be some people who are open minded enough to explore your findings, and then there will be people who will never be open minded about it. But, one's experience shouldn't hinge on what others think about the experience.

Having said that, we should be careful to rule out all possible, logical factors, before making the leap to believing that a ghost was responsible for what we think we saw.

[Magical Realist]

Something interesting to read - http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/587308-h...gle.com%2F

I kind of view alleged ''paranormal activity'' like I do religion - why are some people hard pressed to prove their beliefs to others? If I saw a ghost, and told someone of the experience and he/she didn't believe me, so be it. If I felt convicted by the experience, then that's all that matters. Does the validity of the experience dissipate because no one believes the ''ghost hunter?'' So, if you have had encounters with the paranormal, there will be some people who are open minded enough to explore your findings, and then there will be people who will never be open minded about it. But, one's experience shouldn't hinge on what others think about the experience.

Having said that, we should be careful to rule out all possible, logical factors, before making the leap to believing that a ghost was responsible for what we think we saw.

I think the people who are defensive about their paranormal experience are simply expressing a human reaction to being dismissed as hallucinating nutcases or stupid idiots. That's always the insinuation of the skeptic---this person is not competent to judge their own experience. So they get used to this attack by skeptics. To denigrate them as incompetent fools who want to believe something that doesn't exist. But in fact they are simply defending their right as human beings to be taken seriously and to be respected for what they know they have experienced. It is not an argument for their being disingenous. It is an argument for their having experienced something real and not putting up with the attacks and smears made by skeptics.

[Syne]

What's the mundane cause of shot glass flying off the bar and shattering against the wall?

I don't know. When's the last time someone had a legit forensic investigator go over such scenes? Ever?

[Zinjanthropos]

Do believers presume a ghost sighting represents life after death, the answer to one of the oldest questions in the book?

[Magical Realist]

What's the mundane cause of shot glass flying off the bar and shattering against the wall?

I don't know. When's the last time someone had a legit forensic investigator go over such scenes? Ever?

When's the last time you had legit forensic investigators go over eyewitness's accounts to news events? Never? That's what I thought.

---

Do believers presume a ghost sighting represents life after death, the answer to one of the oldest questions in the book?

Yes..most ghost sightings represent persons that were alive and have died in a certain way. It's the nature of the phenomena.