Man vs. God

[CraigV]

I guess that would be a valid hypothesis. All you need now is some evidence that such a being exists. Without the existence of such a being, the hypothesis cannot be supported.

OK then, would you accept the notion that “he” can only be detected & proven upon the sdeath of the mortal body & releasing of ones soul??

 

[CraigV]

Since there is no evidence to support such a position, I'll have to vote "no".

Why do we need a soul in the first place? What is its purpose?
That only comes into play when one is a believer of the supernatural creator. The soul has no real physical function to existence. No, we do not have one and it is not provable until the supernatural can be proven or shown to exist.

OK then, hopefully others are following along. My daughter & I watch Ghost Hunters all the time. The “investigators” on the program have been in the business for a long time of trying to “debunk” and disprove alleged haunting. They use scientific means and measuring devices to aid them in their quest. 99% of the investigations lead to nothing. Even then, some of the “evidence” they gather is questionable at best. However, there have been some images & voices caught & recorded, as well as interaction of real world objects (like asking the “ghost” to verify their presence by turning on and off a flashlight, and it goes on and off on command). As I said, I think some of what they find is the results of over active imagination, but a small percentage seems very credible. What about that?

 

[Davemcc]

OK then, would you accept the notion that “he” can only be detected & proven upon the sdeath of the mortal body & releasing of ones soul??

Why on earth would I accept that? That presumes an a priori belief that there is a soul to begin with.

 

[zhimbo]

99% of the investigations lead to nothing. [...]As I said, I think some of what they find is the results of over active imagination, but a small percentage seems very credible. What about that?

99% of ghost investigations, 99% of Alien sightings, 99% of miracle healings, and all sorts of things are clearly debunked. (99% is just a rhetorical number I borrowed from you, the actual number may be less or more, of course). A tiny portion of them are not debunked.

Now...surely you don't think 100.0000% of all false cases are going to be conclusively debunked, do you? I don't know the show Ghost Hunters, so I can't comment on it specifically, but there are all sorts of Amazing! Events! that have eventually been debunked. Read James Randi's book on Uri Geller, for example.

Furthermore, the sorts of "tricks" often seen in supposed hauntings typically pale in comparison to the amazing feats performed by magicians all the time. Why should I be impressed by a flashlight turning on and off, when people do this:

?

 

[mtrycrafts]

......but had no further interaction to change/control/create the out come?

I missed this the first read.
If he had no further interaction then how could we have been created in his image? Did he really intend for Andromeda to collide with Milky Way?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

So, yeah, highly improbable things happen all the time.

And, hopefully it is always the next guy to whom it happens.
Except, of course, that monster jackpot with even a higher improbability Then, I am up front, please have it happen to me.

 

[mtrycrafts]

OK then, hopefully others are following along. My daughter & I watch Ghost Hunters all the time. The “investigators” on the program have been in the business for a long time of trying to “debunk” and disprove alleged haunting. They use scientific means and measuring devices to aid them in their quest. 99% of the investigations lead to nothing. Even then, some of the “evidence” they gather is questionable at best. However, there have been some images & voices caught & recorded, as well as interaction of real world objects (like asking the “ghost” to verify their presence by turning on and off a flashlight, and it goes on and off on command). As I said, I think some of what they find is the results of over active imagination, but a small percentage seems very credible. What about that?

I was hoping for a better example. You should really investigate the show, the people on it, their credentials and qualifications to investigate and research properly.
It is a show to entertain, not a scientific program. Any of their research reviewed? What scientific means are they using? Just because they use some instruments, how do you know it is the correct instrument to detect the supernatural realm?
As to that physical interaction, you should ask even harder question of them. Or, is it because one want to believe, most anything qualifies as evidence?
By the way, if a small % is credible, why not all of their findings? Why cannot they get it right?

This example reminds me of a poster many years ago, most likely at my previous audio board, that brought up a show about some magician who had some interesting tricks to show on TV.

 

[mtrycrafts]

99% of ghost investigations, 99% of Alien sightings, 99% of miracle healings, and all sorts of things are clearly debunked. (99% is just a rhetorical number I borrowed from you, the actual number may be less or more, of course). A tiny portion of them are not debunked.

Now...surely you don't think 100.0000% of all false cases are going to be conclusively debunked, do you? I don't know the show Ghost Hunters, so I can't comment on it specifically, but there are all sorts of Amazing! Events! that have eventually been debunked. Read James Randi's book on Uri Geller, for example.

Furthermore, the sorts of "tricks" often seen in supposed hauntings typically pale in comparison to the amazing feats performed by magicians all the time. Why should I be impressed by a flashlight turning on and off, when people do this:

?

Boy, most interesting. Don't think I have seen that before.

Another comment. Who has time to debunk 100% of the pseudo stuff out there? No time, no $$$, no resources to do so. Just like my sister telling me not all psychics are real. Wow. How come none of the real ones ever been tested or credentialed to be psychics?

 

[zhimbo]

I was hoping for a better example. You should really investigate the show, the people on it, their credentials and qualifications to investigate and research properly.
It is a show to entertain, not a scientific program. :

I looked around for info on the show. They have *at least* one confirmed case of showing faked footage:

http://www.skepticalviewer.com/doctored-manson-flir/

And following sure looks like a crude hoax. For more information re: the vid, check out this link:

http://www.skepticalviewer.com/2008/11/10/give-grant-enough-rope-to-hanger-himself/

So, yeah. Definitely not careful researchers. Probably dishonest hoaxers.

 

[JerryLove]

Even then, some of the “evidence” they gather is questionable at best. However, there have been some images & voices caught & recorded, as well as interaction of real world objects (like asking the “ghost” to verify their presence by turning on and off a flashlight, and it goes on and off on command). As I said, I think some of what they find is the results of over active imagination, but a small percentage seems very credible. What about that?

I explain it as "Science Fiction Channel programming". Please tell me you have something better than that.

 

[CraigV]

I missed this the first read.
If he had no further interaction then how could we have been created in his image? Did he really intend for Andromeda to collide with Milky Way?

This is from my first post in this thread, and again these are just some suppositions I have – I have no way of knowing if they’re right/true or not:

I think God saw our species evolving, and when he saw we had the capacity to think, learn & reason, he knew we could comprehend not only our own existence, but the existence of a being greater than ourselves. “In his image” in my opinion means that God endowed humans with souls, the very essence of what he is, so we could experience what his creation had become first hand in order to be closer to him, and better understand him.

 

[CraigV]

I was hoping for a better example. You should really investigate the show, the people on it, their credentials and qualifications to investigate and research properly.
It is a show to entertain, not a scientific program. Any of their research reviewed? What scientific means are they using? Just because they use some instruments, how do you know it is the correct instrument to detect the supernatural realm?
As to that physical interaction, you should ask even harder question of them. Or, is it because one want to believe, most anything qualifies as evidence?
By the way, if a small % is credible, why not all of their findings? Why cannot they get it right?

This example reminds me of a poster many years ago, most likely at my previous audio board, that brought up a show about some magician who had some interesting tricks to show on TV.

I have my beliefs, but I am skeptical of these kinds of shows. However, I’ve yet to see them perpetuate a hoax.

They’re have also been some pretty convincing images.

 

[JerryLove]

They’re have also been some pretty convincing images.

Let's imagine for a moment that there are no ghosts in the real world, and ghost investigators are bound to find nothing unusual.

How many seasons do you think a show of people going in with good equipment and dinsing absolutely nothing would last?

Another option: there are ghosts and they can be detected.
Why no serious investigation that shows that? Certainly the acedemic community was more than willing to believe back in the 1970s. Of course, the most famous psychic turned out to be a magician faking it to prove it could be done.

Why has no one collected Randi's million? I personally don't believe any psychics that haven't won at least two lotteries.

 

[mtrycrafts]

....Why has no one collected Randi's million? I personally don't believe any psychics that haven't won at least two lotteries.

But, they have lots of excuses why not

 

[mtrycrafts]

I looked around for info on the show. They have *at least* one confirmed case of showing faked footage:

http://www.skepticalviewer.com/doctored-manson-flir/

And following sure looks like a crude hoax. For more information re: the vid, check out this link:

...

So, yeah. Definitely not careful researchers. Probably dishonest hoaxers.

What is that saying about smoke and fire?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have my beliefs, but I am skeptical of these kinds of shows. However, I’ve yet to see them perpetuate a hoax.

They’re have also been some pretty convincing images.

How much have you checked into the possibility of there being hoaxes on that show? Or, you mean you didn't see any that you could tell just by watching?
And, even if none has been exposed, perhaps they have a good security on the filming stage? After all, the show will not expose it; you need an outsider for that.
I am just curious about your example after reading your other posts that had some good thoughts behind them. This show as evidence for ghosts, well, lets not ruin an otherwise behaved thread I expected much better.

 

[mtrycrafts]

This is from my first post in this thread, and again these are just some suppositions I have – I have no way of knowing if they’re right/true or not:

....

Oh, OK It still didn't register back then for a good thought to respond or whatever

I just had another thought since I have your attention How would you explain a discovery of an alien race who contacted us but didn't look anything like us? Would their Bible have that 'created in His image' in it?

 

[CraigV]

Let's imagine for a moment that there are no ghosts in the real world, and ghost investigators are bound to find nothing unusual.

How many seasons do you think a show of people going in with good equipment and dinsing absolutely nothing would last?

Another option: there are ghosts and they can be detected.
Why no serious investigation that shows that? Certainly the acedemic community was more than willing to believe back in the 1970s. Of course, the most famous psychic turned out to be a magician faking it to prove it could be done.

Why has no one collected Randi's million? I personally don't believe any psychics that haven't won at least two lotteries.

How much have you checked into the possibility of there being hoaxes on that show? Or, you mean you didn't see any that you could tell just by watching?
And, even if none has been exposed, perhaps they have a good security on the filming stage? After all, the show will not expose it; you need an outsider for that.
I am just curious about your example after reading your other posts that had some good thoughts behind them. This show as evidence for ghosts, well, lets not ruin an otherwise behaved thread I expected much better.

There was an episode where the team was asked to investigate The Queen Mary. During the initial meet with the people who ran the ship (as a hotel in dock) they were shown a room in which a maid claimed she had made up the bed, left the room, returned a few moments later to find the bed unmade & messed up. As they usually do, they set up a camera in the room on a tripod and left it running as they looked around the rest of the ship. Later that night, one of the investigators went to check on the camera, and discovered the bed had in fact been unmade.

Normally the team waits until the next day to review the evidence, but he called to the other investigators, and they reviewed the recording in the camera. Indeed, they all watched as the sheets moved down the bed on their own. Needless to say, they were all amazed. Upon reviewing the recording the next day, one of the investigators got a better look at the footage on a larger monitor. He saw the sheets move, and then noticed they “jumped” (as though the tape skipped) and then started to move again. They we able to determine that someone had entered the room while they were away, pause the camera while someone else hid behind the bed, start the tape, move the sheets, pause the tape and move the sheets again.

When they first viewed the footage (on the cameras small screen) they were thrilled to have some “evidence”. But they did due diligence by closely examining the evidence & realizing someone had tried to fool them. They take what they do very seriously, and when they do find evidence, they present it as it is to the person who invited them to do the investigation.

The point I am trying to make is, there is some evidence out there that has been captured by conventional means which supports the idea that after the mortal body dies, something is released. But even with this evidence, doubters will deny it because to accept it would mean they have to admit something they vehemently deny can be possible.

 

[zhimbo]

Yes, yes, they definitely do things that give the impression of having "due diligence", but have you looked into the possibility of hoaxes/low standards/faked footage? Like, as in, my earlier post? Just do a search on Ghost Hunters Hoax or something similar. There's plenty out there in terms of criticism.

Here's an interesting site: Ghost Hunters for Skeptical Viewers

 

[CraigV]

Yes, yes, they definitely do things that give the impression of having "due diligence", but have you looked into the possibility of hoaxes/low standards/faked footage? Like, as in, my earlier post? Just do a search on Ghost Hunters Hoax or something similar. There's plenty out there in terms of criticism.

Here's an interesting site: Ghost Hunters for Skeptical Viewers

Yes I have, but the skeptics are only voicing their own views, not offering any proof. I saw one such attempt to “debunk” an image that was captured. The person tried to claim it was the reflection of a soundman. He drew in (via computer) what he alleged was the boom mic & headphones. It was very poorly done by someone who refuses to believe thqat such a thing could be reqal. There are lots of clips around that show many odd things like chairs and other objects moving on their own & full body apparitions both on video & thermal imaging cameras. But if you go into it with the mindset that “such things can’t be real” will never be convinced, even if they experience these occurrences first hand.

But that seems to be the case all around. Through the posts I have read here, no one is “on the fence” on the topic at hand – there are those who believe, and those who don’t, and I don’t see anyone saying their mind has been changed by anything. It does occur to me however that a good number of people are completely put out by the idea that there exists other people whose views are out of line with their own, and want very much for that to change. That’s cool I didn’t expect to change anyone’s mind, just trying to give some different ways of thinking about things, so C'est la vie.