why we need ghosts

There's always post #377.
Some stuff moved. It is not evident what moved them.

Again, I certainly grant that it is enough to convince you of ghosts.

But there's nothing here to study or analyze. The video shows stuff moving. The moment came and went. And?

Why not skip the middle man and simply suppose God did it? It is as good an explanation as ghosts. And just as unproveable.
 
Last edited:
Some stuff moved. It is not evident what moved them.

Again, I certainly grant that it is enough to convince you of ghosts.

But there's nothing here to study or analyze. The video shows stuff moving. The moment came and went. And?

Why not skip the middle man and simply suppose God did it? It is as good an explanation as ghosts. And just as unproveable.

Ghosts have a long history of moving things unexplainably. It's called poltergeist activity. God? Not so much.
 
Ghosts have a long history of moving things unexplainably. It's called poltergeist activity. God? Not so much.
Well, that's the funny thing about dogmatic beliefs. God-believers will say exactly the opposite of what you said.

Saying "It's called Divine Intervention" doesn't make it any more real than "It's called poltergeist activity".

By the way, your argument commits the fallacy of "begging the question". You have assumed your conclusion in your premise.
 
God-believers will say exactly the opposite of what you said.

I don't know any theist who claims God moves objects around. That's pretty much the domain of ghosts and haunted locations. You should research poltergeist phenomena. It's a fascinating field of study you might learn something from.
 
I don't know any theist who claims God moves objects around. That's pretty much the domain of ghosts and haunted locations.
And theists likewise have their hammer, and see everything as their nail.

So, mysteries are a field pretty open to anyone who has a pet hypothesis.
 
I have done sufficient research to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to analyze. Hundreds of ghost hunters and the 4.5 billion people with cameras 24/7 should be able to come up with something.

Stew in your ignorance then.
 
Well that's the thing; I am not ignorant.
You are stewing in naivete.
But its so much fun. As a kid I dreamt about great adventures and I made them come true....

Of course, when I reached the age of reason I had to leave Santa Claus behind.
Too bad. He was always so kind.
 
Of course, when I reached the age of reason I had to leave Santa Claus behind.
Too bad. He was always so kind.
Makes you wonder why people often leave the good ones behind but still cling to the ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties - and fire-breathing gods.
 
Well, we've answered the original question of the thread. People like MR need to believe there are ghosts, the same way some people need to believe in God.
 
It's a stretch to say God is moving water or fire that is falling out of the sky. I mean there's always gravity.
So ... you ... just ... rejected a supernatural explanation, in favour of a mundane explanation, due to it being ... more plausible.

That is ... astonishingly evolved of you.

There is hope yet.
 
You clearly get the general concept of dismissing a supernatural explanation over a more plausible, mundane one.

But I wasn't explaining anything. I don't believe in the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, so there's nothing to explain. I was being told God was a giant poltergeist because he moved the rain for the flood and the fire for Sodom and Gomorrah. I merely pointed out noone is making anything move if rain and fire are already falling. Get it now?
 
But I wasn't explaining anything. I don't believe in the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, so there's nothing to explain.
Oddly, you offered an explanation anyway - gravity.

I was being told God was a giant poltergeist because he moved the rain for the flood and the fire for Sodom and Gomorrah. I merely pointed out noone is making anything move if rain and fire are already falling. Get it now?
I get it.

What I find significant is that you did attempt to offer an explanation that is easier to swallow. You offered a mundane, natural explanation in place of an implausible supernatural explanation.

And, if someone suggested "What do you mean you don't think God exists? Everyone thinks so!" you would probably say "Your puny evidence does not convince me."
 
Last edited:
What I find significant is that you did attempt to offer an explanation that is easier to swallow. You offered a mundane, natural explanation in place of an implausible supernatural explanation.

I simply pointed out that God need not be a poltergeist psychokinetically moving raindrops and fire from the sky. He has gravity to do that for him. I was responding to the claim that believing in poltergeists is the same as believing in God, which clearly it isn't since I do believe in poltergeists but don't believe in God. End of story.
 
Back
Top