rosborne979 wrote:
In order to agree or disagree with the statement above, we would need to know your exact definition of God and of Ghost.
FM (and I think Freeduck) are arguing that "Ghost" to them is not a supernatural thing, but simply a natural but extraordinary thing.
Do you include your version of God in the same category?
Ros:
No, there is no need to know my exact definition of ghost and/or god. Fm and freeduck provided their parameters for the existence of 'ghost(s)' and I reference those parameters below.
Fm wrote:
"I will not go so far. Its counter factual and anything supernatural implies the "divine". The phenomena of apparitions exist and have been filmed and recorded by dispassionate observers. Like other laws, we just havent caught up to it yet".
It is not counter factual and whether or not anything
supernatural implies the "divine" is clearly subjective at best. In this case - Fm chooses to disregard Merriam-Webster's primary opinion of supernatural ["of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
"] as it clearly relates to ghosts. Fm makes a weak attempt at including ghosts into the "visible observable universe" portion of MW's thoughts by referencing some obscure, non-scientifically authenticated photographs. As to the "laws" that we have not ?'caught up to yet' - I assume the implication is that although the science-world has not caught up to the concept of ghost-ism yet; do not let this minor detail cloud the fact that ghosts truly exist. If true - then clearly one can say: "If the science-world has not caught up to the concept of God yet - that fact has nothing to do with whether God exists or not
"
Freeduck wrote: It's not whether or not I like the explanation, it's whether or not the explanation adequately explains the phenomenon. There are many many cases where there isn't an adequate explanation. If more than one person experiences the same thing, lets say several people, how likely is it that they are all suffering from the same perceptual distortion?
Similarly; freeduck implies that since ?'several people experience the same thing' referencing the existence of ghosts - then it must be true. Using freeduck's parameters for the existence of ghosts (a supernatural phenomenon as determined by MW) - then clearly the same parameters could and should be used for the so-called by many; supernatural phenomenon called God.
Therefore the pertinent question becomes:
Given the claim by so many on here that God is 'supernatural', not scientifically proven, etc.; thus does not exist - and rightly using the same standards of proof for ghost(s) [supernatural, not scientifically proven to exist - how can anyone believe that ghosts exist?
You cannot have it both ways!
(and don't worry, renters will love a house with atmosphere!)
