whats most believable??

[b-rabbit]

anyone have a compelling story/encounter??

[will641]

on the reals, aliens and it's not even close.

[wufwugy]

if by aliens you mean ones that have kidnapped and sodomized rednecks then no they don't exist, but you mean the existence of extra terrestrial life then yes they very very very likley exist and on a large scale. there's possibly at least a couple different species of alien life in this solar system alone

ghosts are lol

lochness has been proven to not exist, yet similar creatures have existed

bigfoot also has been shown to not exist almost to the same degree as lochness. it would really be the most unlikely probability ever if bigfoot existed today. however, at least one bigfoot-esque creature has existed before, but it lived like 300k years ago. called gigantopethicus, and unfortunately we dont have many skeletal remains so as to what exactly gigan was is up in the air

[WildBobAA]

called gigantopethicus, and unfortunately we dont have many skeletal remains so as to what exactly gigan was is up in the air

gigantopethicus lives*




































































*in my pants

[wufwugy]

this dude live in ur pants?

[a500lbgorilla]

aliens or aliens visiting earth?

[b-rabbit]

bigfoot also has been shown to not exist almost to the same degree as lochness. it would really be the most unlikely probability ever if bigfoot existed today. however, at least one bigfoot-esque creature has existed before, but it lived like 300k years ago. called gigantopethicus, and unfortunately we dont have many skeletal remains so as to what exactly gigan was is up in the air

hes been shown to not exist as much as hes been shown to exist...
not saying he does or doesn't exist, just saying right now its one group of scientists and speculators word against another...
personally i've watched enough MonsterQuest episodes to see that for every educated disbeliever there is an equally well educated advocate for bigfoot's existence. blam

aliens taught/helped the egyptians build the pyramids...(fact)
and also abducted that dude from "Fire in the Sky"
=proofff

lochness monster is ehhh, i think the real sea monsters are the ones living in the deep ocean...right


and call me impressionable, but i've heard so many ghost stories, and experienced enough weird shit myself, to totally dismiss the possibility of ghosts and hauntings...plus shows like ghost hunters and ghost adventures are fun to watch.

[wufwugy]

bigfoot also has been shown to not exist almost to the same degree as lochness. it would really be the most unlikely probability ever if bigfoot existed today. however, at least one bigfoot-esque creature has existed before, but it lived like 300k years ago. called gigantopethicus, and unfortunately we dont have many skeletal remains so as to what exactly gigan was is up in the air

hes been shown to not exist as much as hes been shown to exist...
not saying he does or doesn't exist, just saying right now its one group of scientists and speculators word against another...
personally i've watched enough MonsterQuest episodes to see that for every educated disbeliever there is an equally well educated advocate for bigfoot's existence. blam

aliens taught/helped the egyptians build the pyramids...(fact)
and also abducted that dude from "Fire in the Sky"
=proofff

lochness monster is ehhh, i think the real sea monsters are the ones living in the deep ocean...right


and call me impressionable, but i've heard so many ghost stories, and experienced enough weird shit myself, to totally dismiss the possibility of ghosts and hauntings...plus shows like ghost hunters and ghost adventures are fun to watch.

Uh

1. Bigfoot. It's the word of scientists and their pragmatic approach to gathering knowledge vs laymen and their statistically unreliable anecdotes. Bigfoot is actually the type of thing that science could find very, very easily. The nature of science is largely about making predictions then using current understanding to discover those predictions. Archeology relies upon this immensely, and they find tons of shit due to being able to pinpoint where to look based on knowledge which is substantially inferior to knowledge about a hypothetical bigfoot.

Bigfoot would actually be very easy to find if he existed. The hypothetical bigfoot is huge and his species has lived for a very long time. We know where to look and how to look based on anecdotal sightings, his need to eat, and his need to have come from a large enough gene pool to not have population bottlenecked. Finding Bigfoot would actually be very easy if he existed

And it doesn't matter about the apparent education of supposed observers of Bigfoot. It is scientific fact that all degrees of intelligent people get shit wrong all the time when it's not empirical.

2. Aliens taught building of pyramids? What? Dude do some research on scientific understanding of the building of the pyramids. The leading researching on the pyramids has created a software program which builds the big one at Giza using all the technology that was understood by standard Egyptian architects at the time.

Don't listen to conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience. The pyramids are not some mystical feat.

And lol Fire in the Sky. Please do some research on what science has to say about this type of thing. It is very well understood how people can believe these types of experiences even though they never happened, and it makes zero sense that it could happen in the first place.

It's probably even impossible for highly advanced beings to travel from solar system to solar system anyways. The physics of the universe very likely just don't allow it.

3. Sea monster situation is exactly like Bigfoot. The likelyhood that any exist yet we haven't found them is astronomically tiny by now, and saying it's tiny is a technically correct way of saying it due to the inability of complete knowledge, but practically speaking, Bigfoot and sea monsters are 100% disproven.

4. The mistake you're making is in thinking that anecdote means something. It means NOTHING. This is well documented science. Our understanding is that science is the only method of gathering knowledge in existence. Why believe in ghosts when you can believe in pink elephants covered in space ooze? According to knowledge/science, they are essentially the same

[givememyleg]

aliens

[will641]

aliens taught/helped the egyptians build the pyramids...(fact)
and also abducted that dude from "Fire in the Sky"
=proofff

yes they also helped the aztecs and the mayans and the incans and everyone else. please tell me this is a level?

[dthorne04]

[kmind]

Ghosts then aliens. I know a lot of people who have seen ghosts and who I trust very much. With aliens it's more of a guess but I've seen 2 black saucers in the sky before that quickly disappeared and also heard stories/had people speak about this shit in some of my classes when I was younger.

[BankItDrew]

option 5: Jesus

my answer: aliens, and it's not even close. Well, actually ghosts are close because of the countless eye witnesses accounts.

[wufwugy]

eyewitness schmeyewitness

srsly people, this is very simple stuff. empirical data, u know the stuff that determines knowledge, has very effectively shown that eyewitness accounts are unreliable sources of evidence.

it is just as correct to believe that the universe is being carried on the back of a stoned tortoise that speaks japanese as it is to believe in eyewitness accounts of ghosts and monsters and aliens

[Reidak]

Well everything but aliens would exist solely on our planet; or within a few kilometers of the surface (floating ghosts imo)

Given just how large space is; its way more likely than not that there would be some type of life we would consider alien.

[wufwugy]

and the ineffectiveness of accuracy of eyewitness accounts doesnt have to have anything do with somebody's trustworthiness or intelligence. the brain has been shown empirically to be inefficient enough at processing data that it can 100% believe it sees something that 100% did not happen, and this is actually very very standard brain activity.

[flomo]

kmizzle is a redneck?


correct answer = "all of the above"

[b-rabbit]

hey wufwugy do some research on sarcasm...it may help you with my response to the aliens theory...
i mean honestly i spelled the word proof with three f's


and you can't use the 'bigfoot would be easy to find based on anecdotal sightings' explanation immediately after you trump 'laymen and their statistically unreliable anecdotes and then go on to make your point #4 - anecdotes mean nothing...
so i guess look up 'irony' or 'contradiction' for your own sake while you are searching for 'sarcasm'...
plus they just found a new big ape species like 5 years ago in congo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3730574.stm


95% of the ocean remains unexplored (fact). i do not believe that the lochness monster exists (loch ness is in fact a loch, not an ocean). i just wanted to point out that there is a lot left to discover about the deep blue...

i'm ok with your avid support of scientific practice and knowledge. i'm confused by your claim that phenomena like ghosts can not exist because they are not scientifically proven and "Our understanding is that science is the only method of gathering knowledge in existence" yet you refrain from considering your own previous statement about the inherent limits of science, that "science is largely about making predictions then using current understanding to discover those predictions." i guess we are both agreeing that if there is no current understanding or practical means in which to discover a prediction, then that prediction will remain untestable within the limits of the scientific method...yea?
and on science and ghosts...the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy can not be created nor destroyed but only change in form.


k. happy tuesday. wufwugy you are cool and i like you so lets not be interwebs enemies. i'm going to get drunk

[jyms]

Gotta love what could have been a great little thread, once again shit on by Wufwugy and his super brain. do you ever take a break?

[flomo]

learn not to read it jyms

my poker winnings increased and it made my life better

[BankItDrew]

^^^
lol

I like his posts, they always sound like he gives a shit.

[BankItDrew]

hey wufwugy do some research on sarcasm...it may help you with my response to the aliens theory...
i mean honestly i spelled the word proof with three f's

I love this thread! Because I found this funny as well, as I was thinking the same thing when I scrolled down and noticed wufwugy respond to b-rabbit's sarcasm in great detail. Three F's man! Come on!

Wufwugy, I think you need to consider something else regarding what science is able to observe:

Science is only as good as it's tools. Before Hubble, we had no idea how vast space was. Before the microscope, we had no idea how small things could be. Maybe one day engineers will build a machine that can detect supernatural forces. Possible relationship with ghosts: It's possible that we live within one of eleven dimensions - a theory that helps explain the weak force of gravity. This sort of proof could be provided post CERN experiments.

I love science too buddy, but the last thing I'm going to do with science is say that something is the way it is and that's the end of the story, case closed, next topic. The beauty of science is that it is corrected over and over in the search for more and more information.

[wufwugy]

brabbit, i had a hankering u were being sarcastic, good job.

and you can't use the 'bigfoot would be easy to find based on anecdotal sightings' explanation immediately after you trump 'laymen and their statistically unreliable anecdotes and then go on to make your point #4 - anecdotes mean nothing...

i was referring to the hypothetical

plus they just found a new big ape species like 5 years ago in congo

thats the congo, and its unrelated to bigfoot sightings. the congo is also one of the most unmapped land on the planet and its actually expected that there exist large species there that have not been found.

95% of the ocean remains unexplored (fact). i do not believe that the lochness monster exists (loch ness is in fact a loch, not an ocean). i just wanted to point out that there is a lot left to discover about the deep blue...

there sure is, but given how the ocean works, we can be confident that we have found all whale-sized animals that come to the surface by now.

i'm confused by your claim that phenomena like ghosts can not exist because they are not scientifically proven and "Our understanding is that science is the only method of gathering knowledge in existence" yet you refrain from considering your own previous statement about the inherent limits of science, that "science is largely about making predictions then using current understanding to discover those predictions." i guess we are both agreeing that if there is no current understanding or practical means in which to discover a prediction, then that prediction will remain untestable within the limits of the scientific method...yea?

i think youre misunderstanding how the scientific method and progress of knowledge works.

the claim that science (empiricism) is our only method of gathering knowledge is true since empiricism is the only way to actually know something, and it applies to every aspect of the universe that humans is able to recognize.

making predictions is an aspect of the scientific method, but scientific knowledge still happens without predictions.

[wufwugy]

hey wufwugy do some research on sarcasm...it may help you with my response to the aliens theory...
i mean honestly i spelled the word proof with three f's

I love this thread! Because I found this funny as well, as I was thinking the same thing when I scrolled down and noticed wufwugy respond to b-rabbit's sarcasm in great detail. Three F's man! Come on!

Wufwugy, I think you need to consider something else regarding what science is able to observe:

Science is only as good as it's tools. Before Hubble, we had no idea how vast space was. Before the microscope, we had no idea how small things could be. Maybe one day engineers will build a machine that can detect supernatural forces. Possible relationship with ghosts: It's possible that we live within one of eleven dimensions - a theory that helps explain the weak force of gravity. This sort of proof could be provided post CERN experiments.

I love science too buddy, but the last thing I'm going to do with science is say that something is the way it is and that's the end of the story, case closed, next topic. The beauty of science is that it is corrected over and over in the search for more and more information.

this is absolutely true. science is a continual progress of perfecting knowledge, and that knowledge is never 100% absolute unless mathematical.

but that doesn't suggest that its reasonable to assume something that has no evidence supporting it is possible. it is definitely technically possible, but still practically silly to consider it possible. think of the most ridiculous thing u possibly can and that think is just as possible as ghosts ducy

and the notion about detecting the supernatural one day is misleading. by definition, the supernatural is undetectable, and if we did one day detect some unknown sense or force it would be a product of the natural world.

[BankItDrew]

This thread was created with the assumption that none of the four options have any hardcore proof. It asked a question asking what we thought were the most likely of the four options. This means that everyone here should be given a little slack when they give their answers.

OK, my definition of the word supernatural is not up to snuff. What I should have said was: It is possible that one day engineers will build a machine that can detect ghosts because as it turns out - they are a product of the natural world. Please do not rebut with 'it is unlikely and foolish to think otherwise' - this is your argument most of the time. The reason is that this sort of response is the same given by the majority of people prior to the confirmation from an experiment.

[a500lbgorilla]

and a thread it became

[BankItDrew]

Cliff Notes: My main point in this thread is that no matter how much of a lack of evidence there is for something - you can not discredit the claims completely. This is the same logic behind Dawkins claiming that he is a 'Strict Agnostic.'

Side note,
One of my favorite quotes of all time:
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

[boost]

and the notion about detecting the supernatural one day is misleading. by definition, the supernatural is undetectable, and if we did one day detect some unknown sense or force it would be a product of the natural world.

I agree with most of what youve posted, however you worded some things wrong that left you open to attacks. However this is just nitpicking. Its the same as saying that we cannot identify UFO's because by definition they are unidentifiable. We'll, ok, its not the same, but its damn close.

[boost]

...the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy can not be created nor destroyed but only change in form.

and this lends it self as proof of ghosts how? For this to support the existence of ghosts we would first have to believe in individuals having some sort of "spirit" or "soul." Yet these concepts were conceived, like many religious concepts, only to explain what could not be explained. Or you could even argue that the idea of a soul was created only as a control mechanism; if you have a soul which lives and is judged after you die, you need to act within a rule set to avoid a negative judgment. But that's getting a bit off track. The point is that you are right, energy cannot be destroyed nor created, and neither happens when we are born or when we die. The energy which is stored and/or used as fat, bone, muscle, and other tissue decomposes and is consumed by other living things.

The idea that we need a soul to live is way more far fetched then the theory that our consciousness is simply an extremely complex series of chemical reactions.

[wufwugy]

This thread was created with the assumption that none of the four options have any hardcore proof. It asked a question asking what we thought were the most likely of the four options. This means that everyone here should be given a little slack when they give their answers.

Possibly my biggest hobby is reading/discussing non-fiction, and I'm very much a natural debater inasmuch as when I express a point I express it adamantly even if I'm playing devil's advocate.

I think this is the main problem that some posters here have with me. It seems that many in the commune kinda just don't care about that type of thing, but because it's one of the main things I spend my time doing (I watch academic lectures all the time for fun yo) it comes natural for me to assume everybody else is similar.

[a500lbgorilla]

answer ghosts, proof ghostbusters. QED son

[BankItDrew]

it comes natural for me to assume everybody else is similar.

This is a flaw that you should fix. You could be the greatest physicist in the history of the world but if you do not speak the same language as the people around you - your work is pointless.

One of the greatest challenges that face scientists is that of communicating the results to the public.

[b-rabbit]

...the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy can not be created nor destroyed but only change in form.

and this lends it self as proof of ghosts how? For this to support the existence of ghosts we would first have to believe in individuals having some sort of "spirit" or "soul." Yet these concepts were conceived, like many religious concepts, only to explain what could not be explained. Or you could even argue that the idea of a soul was created only as a control mechanism; if you have a soul which lives and is judged after you die, you need to act within a rule set to avoid a negative judgment. But that's getting a bit off track. The point is that you are right, energy cannot be destroyed nor created, and neither happens when we are born or when we die. The energy which is stored and/or used as fat, bone, muscle, and other tissue decomposes and is consumed by other living things.

The idea that we need a soul to live is way more far fetched then the theory that our consciousness is simply an extremely complex series of chemical reactions.

i am not claiming this scientific law as proof of ghosts. i just wanted to provide a possible example in which science may be incorporated into the study of the supernatural, in particular ghosts. the fat, bone, muscle, and other tissue that you speak of is organic. but what of the electrical energy within living organisms? an interested article on this discussion may be found here http://www.zerotime.com/ghosts/science.htm

[b-rabbit]

i think youre misunderstanding how the scientific method and progress of knowledge works.

the claim that science (empiricism) is our only method of gathering knowledge is true since empiricism is the only way to actually know something, and it applies to every aspect of the universe that humans is able to recognize.

making predictions is an aspect of the scientific method, but scientific knowledge still happens without predictions.

i understand the scientific method very well actually. (i have a bachelor of science degree in biology from the university of virginia.) i was simply pointing out that the scientific method is mostly limited to the study of measurable entities in the physical world. in this way, the relevancy of science in the "spiritual realm" concerning ghosts and the like is hardly reliable.

[givememyleg]

can science explain emotion? or is there something that can only be felt and not described?

[Galapogos]

can science explain emotion? or is there something that can only be felt and not described?

I more interested in the one day science finally has enough time to figure out why my right eye twitches uncontrollably for like 5 seconds if I pluck a nosehair.

[boost]

i think youre misunderstanding how the scientific method and progress of knowledge works.

the claim that science (empiricism) is our only method of gathering knowledge is true since empiricism is the only way to actually know something, and it applies to every aspect of the universe that humans is able to recognize.

making predictions is an aspect of the scientific method, but scientific knowledge still happens without predictions.

i understand the scientific method very well actually. (i have a bachelor of science degree in biology from the university of virginia.) i was simply pointing out that the scientific method is mostly limited to the study of measurable entities in the physical world. in this way, the relevancy of science in the "spiritual realm" concerning ghosts and the like is hardly reliable.

I acknowledge that the following is a sort of self fulfilling statement or whatever but Ill say it anyways:

Science is all encompassing and therefore through the scientific process everything can be explained. The scientific process does take time and therefore some things remain unexplained. However anything that science cannot explain because 'science is not applicable' simply does not exist, else science could in fact be applied and offer an explanation.

[Galapogos]

OGOPOGOOOOOOOO!!!!

[b-rabbit]

its like my heart wants what my brain doesn't know...

[b-rabbit]

[boost]

can science explain emotion? or is there something that can only be felt and not described?

it remains unproven theory, but in theory our consciousness could simply be a very complex series of chemical reactions, and that would include our emotions. This theory is fun, daunting, and horribly depressing all at the same time because if it were true it would mean everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

[b-rabbit]

everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

this

[b-rabbit]

Science is all encompassing and therefore through the scientific process everything can be explained. The scientific process does take time and therefore some things remain unexplained. However anything that science cannot explain because 'science is not applicable' simply does not exist, else science could in fact be applied and offer an explanation.

not this
you say everything can be explained. then say some things can't be explained. but counter that by saying things that can't be explained don't exist...this is just mindfuck

[oskar]

Aliens - why are there even other options? Only a fool or a whore would not pick aliens.

Anyone who thinks that ghosts exist has a very flaky concept of existence. Like... what constitutes existence? Does this apply to ghosts? - and there you got your... like, you know... answer.

[givememyleg]

everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

this

maybe, but your body sure is good at tricking you then. i'm not completely convinced that my consciousness is made up of entirely chemical reactions in my brain.

[wufwugy]

can science explain emotion? or is there something that can only be felt and not described?

it remains unproven theory, but in theory our consciousness could simply be a very complex series of chemical reactions, and that would include our emotions. This theory is fun, daunting, and horribly depressing all at the same time because if it were true it would mean everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

this is a very new field of discovery too. maybe like a decade old, but the recent stuff that has been coming out on the brain is omgwtfbbq, and it will only get more amazing

like scientists are discovering that the brain acts a certain way a split second BEFORE you make a mistake. we'll prolly understand what the brain does very thoroughly in a couple decades, and then a few more to explain that, then a few more to be able to engineer one of our own

so yea you're right, emotions are as real and measurable as anything else, it's just a matter of figuring it out

[wufwugy]

everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

this

maybe, but your body sure is good at tricking you then. i'm not completely convinced that my consciousness is made up of entirely chemical reactions in my brain.

first off, could it not be simply a mistake to think that you're hard to trick? check out the book or some lectures on Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. He's a scientist who deals a ton with how the brain works, and this book particularly goes into detail about exactly how amazingly easily our brains can be confused. its jaw dropping how inefficient human rationality is

saying that it's nothing but chemical reactions is somewhat misleading, but the truth is still in that there is no reason to believe that it's nothing but measurable activity.

human evolution has so profoundly given us this mega ego and imagination, and we're instilled with the tendency to believe in eternal and spiritual things even though there is zero reason to believe those things exist. it is actually counter-intuitive to think that we could be nothing but real physical processes, but the science in this area is becoming very determined this to be the case.

think of this very simple, yet easy to miss example. you get shot in the brain and you die. why? if consciousness is not a product of physical reactions in the brain then why have we never seen somebody lose their brain yet remain conscious?

im not as up to date as i'd like on brain stuff, but im pretty sure that brain scans show that every thought involves physical actions in the brain matter.

[gabe]

aliens taught/helped the egyptians build the pyramids...(fact)
and also abducted that dude from "Fire in the Sky"
=proofff

lochness monster is ehhh, i think the real sea monsters are the ones living in the deep ocean...right

[gabe]

i would lay big odds that aliens exist. theres just too many galaxies and stars for them not to. (100 bil galaxies, 100 bil stars per galaxies?)

ghosts are interesting because they are the hardest to prove. that probably affects how believable we view them because we are more likely to believe something that we know we can prove eventually, maybe. does that make sense

[wufwugy]

that probably affects how believable we view them because we are more likely to believe something that we know we can prove eventually, maybe. does that make sense

Without the 'prove eventually' clause and peoples tendency to not understand what proof is, it is wrong. But even the upwards of 95% or something of humans who have existed who believe in supernatural beings probably all felt that 'eventually' it would be 'proven'. Problem is that if they understood proof they wouldn't think that.

[will641]

i would lay big odds that aliens exist. theres just too many galaxies and stars for them not to. (100 bil galaxies, 100 bil stars per galaxies?)

i watched a show on this, think it was called the universe on nat geo, and the dudes on there were saying they have a theory that the universe is infinite. ergo, with infinity, there are infinite amount of possibilities. so if it were correct, there is baller gabe (probably planet earth), president gabe, gang banger gabe, etc.

[givememyleg]

everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

this

maybe, but your body sure is good at tricking you then. i'm not completely convinced that my consciousness is made up of entirely chemical reactions in my brain.

first off, could it not be simply a mistake to think that you're hard to trick? check out the book or some lectures on Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. He's a scientist who deals a ton with how the brain works, and this book particularly goes into detail about exactly how amazingly easily our brains can be confused. its jaw dropping how inefficient human rationality is

saying that it's nothing but chemical reactions is somewhat misleading, but the truth is still in that there is no reason to believe that it's nothing but measurable activity.

human evolution has so profoundly given us this mega ego and imagination, and we're instilled with the tendency to believe in eternal and spiritual things even though there is zero reason to believe those things exist. it is actually counter-intuitive to think that we could be nothing but real physical processes, but the science in this area is becoming very determined this to be the case.

think of this very simple, yet easy to miss example. you get shot in the brain and you die. why? if consciousness is not a product of physical reactions in the brain then why have we never seen somebody lose their brain yet remain conscious?

im not as up to date as i'd like on brain stuff, but im pretty sure that brain scans show that every thought involves physical actions in the brain matter.

well then there's the theory that some form of consciousness, if possible to achieve, can survive death. but yes i agree that humans are completely irrational and easy to trick. it just doesn't seem like i should be though.

[givememyleg]

oh and for sure, regardless of how rare life is to form, there are just too many galaxies in the universe for us to be the only one. we are not alone!

[b-rabbit]

yea nobody understands proofff these days

[wufwugy]

what's wrong with just assuming that poker forumites are illiterateeee?

[boost]

Science is all encompassing and therefore through the scientific process everything can be explained. The scientific process does take time and therefore some things remain unexplained. However anything that science cannot explain because 'science is not applicable' simply does not exist, else science could in fact be applied and offer an explanation.

then say some things can't be explained.

I said somethings cant be explained? Im pretty sure I didnt. There is a huge difference between "cant be explained" and "has not yet been explained."

If you were refering to this:

However anything that science cannot explain because 'science is not applicable' simply does not exist

then Im not sure how you think this is in anyway contradictory. The something I refer to never existed, it is simply a vague idea that you brought up and supported with the rational that science could not explain it.

Imo the argument that "science cannot explain everything" is exactly like when someone makes an irrational decision then tries to justify it by saying that everything is not within the realm of logic and that their decision is one of those things because it was based on intuition/feeling/emotion.

Another example would be a discussion between an atheist and a christian. The christian will be cornered by logic and fall back on "you just need to have faith."

Pretty much my point is, is that you cannot have anything outside of science or outside of logic or outside of the laws of physics. As we learn these things evolve to accommodate newly discovered facts. If we allow anything to exist outside of these rule sets, then they themselves are worth nothing.

[Ash256]

a) Do ghosts (i.e. the semi-transparent manifestations) exist? Probably. Whilst I see the logic in saying that "pink elephants covered in space ooze" are the same according to science, they're not, as many more people have reported seeing ghosts than have reported seeing pink elephants covered in space ooze.

b) Are ghosts souls/spirits of the deceased? Probably not, maybe they're some kinda electromagnetic concentration or something, fuck knows..

Anyway in conclusion I'm saying that ghosts are another unsolved phenomenon, in the same way that people may have once called Aurora Borealis angels dancing or something..

[gabe]

Pretty much my point is, is that you cannot have anything outside of science or outside of logic or outside of the laws of physics.

we hope..

[BennyLaRue]

Pretty much my point is, is that you cannot have anything outside of science or outside of logic or outside of the laws of physics.

Obviously you haven't seen what they're doing with bras nowadays.

[b-rabbit]

boost
i think i was referring to your statement that "The scientific process does take time and therefore some things remain unexplained." this is my point about exploring the supernatural. the tools that exist for ghost hunting now are limited to shit like EMF detectors, digital audio recorders, or infrared cameras. but until some super nerd creates a camera or some other way to see what can be unmistakeably identified as fucking dead uncle sal wondering around the house, then all the other 'evidence' will remain debatable. its like skeptics of aliens and bigfoot are only going to swayed when they're shown a body. i guess thats what i'm saying...
its just something i want to learn more about before i dismiss it altogether.

"Pretty much my point is, is that you cannot have anything outside of science or outside of logic or outside of the laws of physics. As we learn these things evolve to accommodate newly discovered facts."

[wufwugy]

a) Do ghosts (i.e. the semi-transparent manifestations) exist? Probably. Whilst I see the logic in saying that "pink elephants covered in space ooze" are the same according to science, they're not, as many more people have reported seeing ghosts than have reported seeing pink elephants covered in space ooze.

Science is empirical evidence (testable, repeatable, consistent), ghost sitings are anecdotal evidence (someone says something) which science doesn't consider evidence in any way. My analogy is just fine.

Science doesn't care about anecdote because it has researched anecdote extensively, and the consistent results have been that anecdote is statistically unreliable i.e. there is no way of distinguishing what is true/false via anecdote.

[wufwugy]

boost
i think i was referring to your statement that "The scientific process does take time and therefore some things remain unexplained." this is my point about exploring the supernatural. the tools that exist for ghost hunting now are limited to shit like EMF detectors, digital audio recorders, or infrared cameras. but until some super nerd creates a camera or some other way to see what can be unmistakeably identified as fucking dead uncle sal wondering around the house, then all the other 'evidence' will remain debatable. its like skeptics of aliens and bigfoot are only going to swayed when they're shown a body. i guess thats what i'm saying...
its just something i want to learn more about before i dismiss it altogether.

"Pretty much my point is, is that you cannot have anything outside of science or outside of logic or outside of the laws of physics. As we learn these things evolve to accommodate newly discovered facts."

Boost's thoughts are consistent with scientific consensus, and what you're describing is also explained with the scientific process.

You are right that it's possible for ghost-like entities to exist, and you're right that we may someday invent devices that provide empirical data of their existence, but this possibility is more of a technicality than a practicality. And if this did ever come to pass, the results would not be 100% consistent with 'ghost sightings' (because those sightings aren't even consistent), and the people who were 'right' about ghosts would effectively have gotten lucky. Very, very, very, very, unfathomably lucky

It is possible that creationism is true, and that god made everything empirically consistent with evolution just to trick us. That is possible, but it's also ridiculous, and the likelyhood of it is just so colossally tiny that it's safe to say it's not true.

Look at it this way, it is possible to play 5k hands of poker every day for a million years and never get dealt a hand other than AA. This is absolutely realistically possible, but c'mon, taking something like that serious is misguided.

[Ash256]

a) Do ghosts (i.e. the semi-transparent manifestations) exist? Probably. Whilst I see the logic in saying that "pink elephants covered in space ooze" are the same according to science, they're not, as many more people have reported seeing ghosts than have reported seeing pink elephants covered in space ooze.

Science is empirical evidence (testable, repeatable, consistent), ghost sitings are anecdotal evidence (someone says something) which science doesn't consider evidence in any way. My analogy is just fine.

Science doesn't care about anecdote because it has researched anecdote extensively, and the consistent results have been that anecdote is statistically unreliable i.e. there is no way of distinguishing what is true/false via anecdote.

A bit of a weak ref I know, but according to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305277,00.html, 23% of americans claim they have seen a ghost or believe they have been in one's presence.

What I was getting at was that a larger % of the population will claim to have seen a ghost than will claim to have seen pink elephants covered in space ooze. That is something that for the moment is (and will be until an advancement is made) testable, repeatable and consistent.

The claim that a ghost is the soul/spirit of a deceased person is ofc wholly anecdotal and silly according to logic.

[wufwugy]

So your intention was to bring up the fact that science is able to verify the number of people who believe in ghosts? Yeah that's true....

[boost]

So your intention was to bring up the fact that science is able to verify the number of people who believe in ghosts? Yeah that's true....

dude... wuf owns people so hard, it just makes me laugh.


But to be less of a jackass, the fact that more people see ghosts than space elephants means very little. This can be easily reasoned as an effect of cultural influence. People watch movies about ghosts, not movies about space elephants covered in ooze or whatever. It really proves nothing that more people believe in ghosts.

[Ash256]

So your intention was to bring up the fact that science is able to verify the number of people who believe in ghosts? Yeah that's true....

dude... wuf owns people so hard, it just makes me laugh.


But to be less of a jackass, the fact that more people see ghosts than space elephants means very little. This can be easily reasoned as an effect of cultural influence. People watch movies about ghosts, not movies about space elephants covered in ooze or whatever. It really proves nothing that more people believe in ghosts.

lolz, remind me never to post in a wuf thread again

[Jack Sawyer]

Aliens do exist, statistically. Question is, do we want to find (all of) them? Think Starship Troopers.

[b-rabbit]

so we all agree then that ghosts exist

[JKDS]

lochness vs bigfoot, who will win???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

[allabout]

Gotta say aliens. I saw something I couldn't explain, and still can't. Maybe I just watch too much UFO hunters and Monster Quest and shit like that, but I've never had someone give me a good explanation of what it could have been. Would love to see proof of something cool someday though.

[dranger7070]

Wufwugy = my hero. Pretty much everything he has said in this thread is something along the lines of what I would say, except much, MUCH more bad ass, and soul pwning to ppl on the opposite side of the argument lol. I don't like the thought of no soul, no meaning for life, etc, but just because I don't "like" something doesn't make it anymore true.

And the obvious answer to this one is aliens. Obv not the "take me to your leader" bullshit hollywood aliens, but I'm thinking like bacteria at the very least on some other star/moon/planet. That qualifies as alien, too.

Nice work on starting a decent thread/good read b-rabbit.

[dranger7070]

Also, I LOVE debating with devout Christians about God. I did a paper in my writing and composition class about this exact topic and there was an atheist and two or three hardcore Christians in the class. My stance was neutral in the situation (I can honestly care less), but it was poopin' HILARIOUS how heated each side got whenever I would bring up the topic. It's just so fun to watch Christians backpedal into "well, you wouldn't understand" or as someone already said, "you gotta have faith." It makes my head hurt to think that people can follow something so blindly with no evidence to support their beliefs. :/ Although, like pretty much everyone else, I do the same thing about some things, I'm just not sure what they are...

[givememyleg]

Wufwugy = my hero.

stopped reading here

[wufwugy]

on teh internets, most people only like me at first

[dranger7070]

I can understand y, but idk I just agree with you on a lot of points itt. I'm sure the day will come when I reach the same level of like/hate of you as everyone else.