Why Ghosts are not Real

Originally posted by Logical one

We still don't know what is a ghost.......but I would venture to say that the phenomena is likely more genuine than say "Alien abduction"

Why? I don't see why you would believe people who say they have seen ghosts, but not believe people who say they have seen aliens? What's the reasoning? At least the people who claim to have seen aliens have UFOs to provide at least a tiny shred of credibility to their claims. Also aliens are reported as physical beings, and we know physical beings exist, whereas ghosts are ?spiritual/energy? beings, and we have no evidence that something like that exists. So to me it makes no sense to claim ghosts are more likely to be real than alien abductions.

So you think ghosts aren't real because you don't believe in them? I take it even though they have been proven to exist to others, they have never been proven to exist in a way that satisfies you. You know, it wasn't all that long ago that a lot of people believed the Earth was flat. Not that long ago that most people would never have believed that we are made up of living cells. Or that the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. But just because the technology was not developed enough to prove those things to be true, it didn't mean they were false. It would be arrogant to think we 'know it all'. I would venture to say that there is far more we don't know than what we do know. I think one day there will be new technology that will prove beyond a doubt to most people that "ghosts" or "spirits" do exist and are often present on this Earthly realm.

Here's an interesting idea, maybe everyone knows nothing about everything and everyone is equally wrong, therefore the only thing that matters is the fact you believe and are happy. Socrates- "the only wisdom comes in knowing that you know nothing"

Actually, it is full of spirits. I work in Manhattan as a bank messenger and am based right next to ground zero in the BNY Mellon building. My wife will not go there anymore. We both are hyper sensitive to spirits. There is a heavy feeling down there. There is a book, I can't remember the name, but it was written by a widow of a 911 victim and has many stories of visitations by alot of victims families. Also, at The Dakota, where John Lennon was murdered is an interesting place for spirits...a heavy feeling for sure.

Originally posted by Totalstranger

Originally posted by Sonya610
But you really want to though, huh? Lots of emotion in your post. And yeah, stuff happens that cannot ever be explained by corporal laws.

Edit and animal ghosts do exist. A family ghost story...St. Bernard walking around a Swiss Mountain Cabin...of course they exist.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Sonya610]

ok I'll bite. where are all the dinosaur ghosts then? and neanderthal ghosts?

This is exactly my argument when people tell me they believe in ghosts. Cro-magnon man ghosts? Sabre Tooth Tiger ghosts? Ant ghosts? earthworm ghosts?

If ghosts exist, the human race should not be the only species to become them, apart from our success on the planet, we aren't any more significant than another life form.

I have heard reports of ghost ships, ghost horse and carriages etc. How the hell can a ship become a ghost, or a carriage? They were never alive.

But yeah, really over in ghost-land, there should be T-Rex ghosts, Diplodocus ghosts, caveman ghosts all existing together next to modern man ghosts! perhaps they expire and that's why you rarely hear of ghosts before the 18th century or so. In fact, nearly ALL reports I have seen feature an 18th century ghost. Like it was a intense ghost produce era or something.

What also is odd to me is their reported behaviour too. I would bet money these so called ghosts didn't feel the need to run around banging doors and rattling chains when they were alive, so why the sudden urge to do it now they're dead? "Oh wow, I'm dead and I'm a ghost, better get me a ball and chain from the ghost store and start annoying people" It just doesn't add up, perhaps ghost life is so boring that they just go completely insane who knows.

( sorry if this is an old thread resurfacing, I just had to post in it )

reply to post by Soulstone


the poor souls don't want to hang around a hectic place. The go to a place of expectation.

reply to post by Soulstone


Actually.. that would prove nothing.. hiding one's IP address is not exactly rocket science.. it's rather easy.. especially the simpler methods.

Back to the topic..


Whether ghosts exist or not.. I've yet to see anything even remotely close to proving or disproving the phenomena.. so I just try to keep an open mind on the subject.

reply to post by Soulstone

If ghosts or spirits are real why aren't there reported sightings all over NYC after 9/11. Shouldn't the old WTC ruins be completely amassed with ghosts?

i have to add this video after reading the above quote in the OP. im not claiming that this is evidence but it is a report of spirits from 9/11. start the video at 1:54.

youtube video

i remember reading this thread back in my lurking days.

reply to post by Audiokat
Agreed. Ghostly phenomena doesn't make much sense, does it? Where are all the animal ghosts, and why do the vast majority of animal ghost sightings seem to be attributed to Fido or the family cat or barn animal? There always seems to be a human connection. Shouldn't the freeways be filled with the zillions of ghosts of brutally killed animals? Shouldn't the very planet be covered with spirits? I believe in the phenomena, but I don't put a lot of stock into old/modern explanations/theories about the origins and makeup of 'ghosts'. It's interesting that when you send believers to look for ghosts, they often find them. Send skeptics in, and ghosts are rarely rattling any chains.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Sonya610

 

So you accept you have no evidence for ghosts at all, yet you still claim they exist? Do you see your stance on ghosts is somewhat delusional? You have absolutely no rational reason to believe in them, yet you do.

I'm not being rude, I'm just trying to figure out why a grown human being would waste energy and effort on a phenomenon that has to yet be demonstrated to anyone. I hope you don't treat other facets of your life with such slap-dash reasoning

#

What if a completely rational person has seen one with their own eye's?
They can't provide evidence because it's near impossible to verify anything to do with the subject, everything can be passed off as mind trick or delusional.
Yet this person has seen something that wasn't supposed to be there.

Do we need the "Don't ask don't tell" rule instated with paranormal occurances???


There's no proof they don't exist, I challenge you to provide some.

reply to post by Balkan


Could you tell the difference between a ghost animal and a physical animal?
Has an animal ever ran out infront of you, you know you should of hit it but you didn't???

reply to post by Balkan

Where are all the animal ghosts

they are eaten by human ghosts? (joking). there are reports of animal spirits but i personally haven't seen any. it would be crazy to see some dinosaur ghosts. maybe people have and that is what the lochness monster is?

reply to post by Chukkles

Unfortunately, when an animal has ran into the path of my vehicle I've usually managed to kill it, even though I tried not to. I see your point, but shouldn't there be millions and millions of ghostly animals all around us at this point? What about insects? No souls? Shouldn't hospitals be brimming with paranormal activity?

This reminds me of some ghost show I watched in the past where a ghost purportedly communicated the line "Phantoms fill the skies around us.". Scary thought.

reply to post by Balkan


I think what it comes down to is the receptor's, unfortunatly only few people can have any prolongued experiance with them.
Most others only see glimpses and can easily put it down to other circumstances.

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic

Why? I don't see why you would believe people who say they have seen ghosts, but not believe people who say they have seen aliens? What's the reasoning? At least the people who claim to have seen aliens have UFOs to provide at least a tiny shred of credibility to their claims. Also aliens are reported as physical beings, and we know physical beings exist, whereas ghosts are ?spiritual/energy? beings, and we have no evidence that something like that exists. So to me it makes no sense to claim ghosts are more likely to be real than alien abductions.

My reasoning why I think ghosts are more likely to be real than alien abductions?

Well the "alien abduction" accounts have only been circulating for 50 years after the "Betty and Barney Hill" accounts.
Ghosts on the other hand have been reported over centuries if not longer.

Whilst I do think many ghost phenomena can be put down to misidentification or hoaxes, I think there are just too many accounts from otherwise sane people who recount seeing or experiencing ghosts.
Even today go into any crowded bar/ cafe and ask if anyone thinks they have experienced ghostly phenomena or has any first hand accounts of ghost then usually there will be a number of people who will say they have...........If you asked about "alien abduction" then you probably have to visit many bars/cafe to get one single account of "alien abduction"

I am sure if you asked members of your own family some may actually have tales to tell about first hand ghost accounts.........but ask your family members about "alien abduction" and I think you will get a blank response.

Have you ever watched the tv program "Celebrity Ghost Stories"............yes I know what you are thinking it's a tv show..........but this show does allow the celebrities to recount their tales in their own words.
Somehow I doubt very much that there will ever be a "Celebrity Alien Abduction Stories" program.........for the simple reason that there will be far fewer celebrities if any that have been abducted by aliens than have experienced ghostly phenomena.

Like I said you probably can discount a lot of supposed Ghost Phenomena........but it still remains a much wider and more experienced phenomena than "alien abduction".

So yeah, I'll stick with my original conclusion that the ghost phenomena is more likely to be real than is the "alien abduction" phenomena.

Originally posted by OldDragger
It is estimated tha between 100 billion and 115 billion people have lived.
If only one half of ONE PERCENT were ghosts, we would have 500 million some ghosts!!!
If FIVE percent were ghosts, that would be FIVE BILLION!!!
Please kids!
And how many animals have lived?
Ghosts are nothing but a fear of death , in some cases guilt , and a desire for an afterlife.

You ask a valid question OldDragger.........I can safely say that no one really knows the answers to your questions.........but I can at least attempt to answer.

Firstly not all people who die become ghosts........again there have been a number of theories why this might be (i.e sudden death, traumatised individual etc)........but noone really knows.
You are also assuming that ghosts stay around forever...........but perhaps they don't some may simply fade away over time.
So your estimates of how many ghosts are on Earth at any given time may actually be wildly inaccurate.

As for animals......... again noone knows for sure but I would put forward this theory, that only animals that actually ponder "the meaning of life" can become "ghost animals"...........which means all wild animals that ever lived simply die and do not become ghost because their minds were never made that way.

So how come some "pet" animals are seen as "ghosts"........well I think that some type of "spiritual" connection (for want of a better description) can be made between owner and pet.......indeed some independent research seems to back up claims that pets like dogs can form a "physic" bond with their owner so much so that the pet seems to sense when their owners are coming home........even when the owner purposely leaves work at different random times.
So my theory is that certain pets that have bonded with their owners this way, also "inherit" the ability to become a ghost from their owners.

Like I said, there is a lot of speculative theories as to why some people become ghosts whilst others do not.
I myself think that it may not have anything to do with the circumstances of the death at all......but more to do with some type of "ghost gene"...............in other words..........If you are lucky enough to posses this very rare "ghost gene".........then you do have the ability to become a ghost.......If you don't have this gene like the vast majority..........then you simply die.
Well that's my theory anyway!

the only way to completely 'know' ghosts are real is to go through an experience involving them. im not talking about thinking you saw something and then saying 'omg ghost.' i mean go through an ordeal of multiple things and experience it with your own eyes/ears. the questions asked are questions i have wondered also, shouldnt the world be full of ghosts and things be 'mysteriously' moving all the time? obviously i dont have the answer for that kind of thing, all i know is there is a house i definately will never go back to.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Sonya610

 

I'm not being rude, I'm just trying to figure out why a grown human being would waste energy and effort on a phenomenon that has to yet be demonstrated to anyone. I hope you don't treat other facets of your life with such slap-dash reasoning

So just like sonya telling her story without evidence does not proof make, the fact that you tell us you arent being rude (when the proof tells us otherwise) makes it so?
PFFFT.

Originally posted by Soulstone
The title is a bit abrupt and my motives behind it is to grasp your attention as to why ghosts might not be real.

If ghosts or spirits are real why aren't there reported sightings all over NYC after 9/11. Shouldn't the old WTC ruins be completely amassed with ghosts?

Why is it there are places that are haunted in particular when there are death tolls in the thousands in certain places where there does not seem to be any residual or conscious hauntings?

Shouldn't there be ghosts everywhere given the amount of people that have died throughout history on this planet?

Why is it always humans that haunt and not animals? Don't they have the same biological functions.

Some questions that need answers before I can begin to consider the possibility seriously......

 

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

Thank you for your compliance and understanding.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by kinglizard]

Ther are of animals as well..Use to have a ginnea pig that came back and rang his bell..and also a black dog named bear who use to bark at my back door...but no one there....

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Lebowski achiever

 

Yes - if he absolutely believes it was a murder, that is irrational. It could have been staged. Or the person might not have died. Assuming it is a murder is irrational. Of course it's still possible it was a murder, which is why the cops should be involved, but to say it definitely was a murder is, as strange as it may seem to you, irrational.

And no, I didn't watch TV. However I did watch some TV on my computer, which I'm fairly sure happened, as I can repeat it ad infinitum on request to anyone who wishes to observe. I can do it in a controlled environment, with any scientific instrument you want measuring it. That is the difference

Okay, I can see how you can say believing in Ghosts is irrational, but only at first glance. I get that trusting your senses CAN BE irrational. However, you are absolutely stuck in absolutes.

If you witness a murder, an actual murder, and the police cannot find any evidence later on, it doesn't make you irrational for believing you saw a murder (just as you are claiming it would be irrational for you to believe in ghosts). In fact, I would say it would be far more irrational to think you saw nothing.

Let's illustrate:

You are walking down the street. You are approaching the corner as you two people standing on this corner. As you get within 15 feet of said corner you see a person pull out a gun and shoot the other person in the head. You see the blood spatter right in front of your feet as the person goes limp and hits the ground. They are clearly dead. You then run away and escape. Meanwhile, this person cleans up all the evidence, and disposes of the body. However, you have since called the police. They cannot prove there is murder. Would it be more rational to continue in your belief that you saw a murder? Or would it be more rational to decide that maybe you did not see this murder?

I think it's quite obvious that it would be far more rational to believe you saw a murder. Why? Because you are using sound logic and judgment. A bullet went into someone's head. You saw their brains scatter all about on the ground. You watched them go limp and hit the ground. You know that this type of injury typically kills people. And you know that someone would have a motive to clean up said crime. To avoid getting caught. Therefore, based on what you know to be true, it is only rational to conclude that you did witness the murder. In fact, with all that knowledge, it becomes highly irrational to assume said person survived this incident.

Now onto ghosts. This is a completely different subject matter. Which is where your discussion into absolutes is killing you. At one point, you compare a non-living candle burning out to a living human being eventually dying off. How can something non-living have a living soul? Isn't a soul only defined as existing in the living? Thus, your analogy makes no sense.

However, does it make sense to blindly believe something you saw was ghost related? No. Why, because there are various other things we know of that can cause the same effects, so to speak. For instance, creaking in the floor or ceiling when no one else is home, could be wood settling. Scratching on the walls, could be a rodent, bird, or any other animal. I could go on. However, witnessing experience after experience, as some people have, meanwhile ruling out other causes, can turn what is, at first glance, irrational into rational. As I stated earlier, rationality is using sound logic and judgment. Thus, after eliminating all other potential affects, and being left with only one potential option (that we currently know about/believe in), you would be of sound judgment in saying that it is a ghost. You would at the same time be of sound judgment in concluding it is not a ghost. Since, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of ghosts, it is always rational to assume that whatever occurred was not a ghost. But that doesn't mean it cannot be rational to presume it was indeed a ghost.

Finally, the inability to scientifically measure a ghosts existence does not show, in any way, that there is no such thing as ghosts. That's because, if they do exist, a ghost would be a person, who would likely have the ability to choose to, or refuse to, participate in any controlled experiments.