The below video provides a good starting debate on the debate of whether or not a Ghost exists or not. While not all the information provided in the video should be taken as given, it opens up the possibility and the reason why Ghosts or Spirits are not something that can easily be proven or diss proven with modern science. Instead he goes into the reasons why it cannot and why paranormal evidence backs up why both sides have a great argument.
To me and my experience of Ghosts or Spirits is of that they do exist, because of the many experiences I have had in the past. However to many others with no experience it may be be seen as total rubbish. That is the brilliance of this big debate.
Like anything for those searching for an experience in paranormal you only have to look around. If you really need to prove it to yourself then maybe go stay in a known haunted dwelling, land or house for a few weeks. Hey for research sakes why not try a few and see if anything happens.
Please note that with the video below I am not taking a religious stance on anything and do not fully agree with the end results of the video on the take of fallen angels or demons. This interpretation is up to you to decide on how you feel. To me and my own opinions, spirits can be good or bad?
Video Above – Can Science Prove the Existence of Ghosts or Spirits..?
Facts On Ghosts..
- Did you know that 1 in 5 people around the world claim to have had an experience with ghosts or paranormal, all of which these claims are from people with no mental problems or history. This says a lot for the facts on Ghosts, this says that there is something going on and it should not be ignored.
- Did you know that the ghost debate is not something that can be proven or disproved with science?
- Did you know that many aspects of life that are not proven even to this day that we take for granted?
- Did you know that a old haunted house has multiple histories of haunting’s throughout the years, does not history coincide with what we call fact. So does that mean that a history of haunting’s in a location indicates a fact of ghosts?
- How many times is evidence caught of haunting’s by paranormal investigators who earn no money from there research..? That figure is over 90%.. Over 90% of investigators make not a dime from there own research. Only a small amount of paranormal investigators with evidence earn money, which indicates that manipulation of evidence for profit would be quite rare.
- Skeptics claim that by not being able to prove ghosts exist that they are in fact not real. That is a big claim considering the amount of people that have experiences in there lifetime. What do you think?
Okay, so now, can science prove the existence of ghosts? The truth is no, science cannot prove it and at the same time science cannot disprove it. It is one of those many issues in life that we all as humans need to except for the time being. Maybe in the future things will change.. Let me know what you think?
These ghost that you see indeed are real but not all of these ghost or spirits are demons.If you were me you would know that every time my sister sees a ghost or a demon she crys to me or my mom nonstop i just wanted to inform you that ghost are NOT demons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f9JSFzeHrk&nomobile=1
Please watch this video of a real ghost captured on film.
Just out of curiosity, WHY can’t it be proven or disproven? Is this something which you can prove – the lack of scientific proof, I mean?
That is why it is such a good question. So many times science does try to prove however because it is such a non physical experience science seems to always come to dead ends. That does not mean it is not real, just that it is hard to get evidence on. That is why i like ghost hunters where they combine science with there experiences of hunting ghosts at the same. While they provide evidence and good evidence still many skeptics think it is all a hoax..
But it IS a physical experience. Anything which is visible has some kind of actual physical presence exactly where you can see it. If you see something it is possible for you to interact with it physically.
The reason scietific evidence has not been forthcoming thus far is that there has been nothing to record in the first place. Matter does not emit light, it reflects it. We see the effect of this reflection when it hits us in the eye. If something is visible to us it means that has a solid enough physical presence to reflect light particles. If it is solid enough to do this it is, by definition, solid enough to enable us to touch, smell, taste and hear it. It is actually there.
This is not some spiritual essence that only those “attuned” to it can see: what one person sees, another will also see.
Considering the advances in psychological knowledge over the last century it is far more likely that people who claim to see spirits are simply so keen to believe that they are there that they either make an honest mistake or deliberately lie about it. These psychological effects are well documented, as is the way in which light works. If you claim that spirits are real then you must first provide significant justification for abandoning proven concepts in order to replace them with an alternative. If you cannot do that then it is likely, at least on current evidence, that you are simply incorrect.
Hey Chris,
Oh geez, i understand your point as a skeptic but this falls in the realm of not normal science Chris. This post is about how hard it is to prove. It obviously is in a realm of where normal science does not work well. I can tell you have never stayed in a haunted house ever in your life. I for one have lived in two over my lifetime and yes on many occasions two people or more had the same experience multiple times. Not hallucinations or the mind playing tricks. To a skeptic i know it is hard, science can say so much about what we know in great detail. However it does not cover everything, we all know that, there are things that we know are there but it cannot explain. Things in space, things on earth. Heck, things about how amazing the human body is. Not everything can just be explained away with basic science. Elements of it cannot. As for saying that science is not used to investigate ghosts, that is not true either, many use science to explain, video footage, emps, psychological tests, camera footage, you name it, however like i keep saying because it is not like normal science bound experience it falls into the unknown which is what makes it hard to explain.
That’s what i was saying before when referring to this evidence as well, to the one that has the experience and has it on film it is 100% real. However to the skeptic they like to accuse the film of not being authentic. It is easy to call someone a lyre to a skeptic rather than face the fact that some things cannot be explained. Same goes with words on emps or an experience caught on camera. While none of these are ever good photo’s there is a very good reason, because they are not bound by the normal laws of science.
Fatima, Portugal, 1917. Over 30,000 people were prepared to swear that they had seen the sun veer out of its place in the sky and hurtle towards the earth. They are mistaken. No-one outside of this small area of Iberia noticed this phenomena which, considering how utterly conspicuous it would have been, is more than enough evidence that it did not happen as claimed.
This is my way of suggesting to you that a couple of witnesses to a haunting is not good evidence that it happened. On the contrary, if they were expecting something unusual to happen they would have been primed for it in the same way as the catholics at Fatima. While I am not accusing you of outright dishonesty I feel I am perfectly entitled to suggest that you have failed to rule out potential explanations. You have mentioned before that items would move from one room to another: the first thing, the very FIRST thing, I would have done in this situation is point a camera at the spot where they often vanish from and try to catch it. Did you do so? You could have either confirmed your supernatural suspicions or found out who/what was actually causing it.
Hiding behind “parascience” is, frankly, bizarre. Science is not strictly analysing things in terms of their chemical structure or the physical fields which they are subject to. This would not explain, for example, cognitive psychological effects. You are making this a more complex issue than it needs to be. There is one way and one way alone in which objects become visible to us; photons bounce off them and towards our eyes, where they are registered by our rods and cones. If something is visible to a human it is, by definition, reflecting photons at them.
The standard model of particle physics has proved staggeringly accurate in terms of experimentation. This predicts the particles which make up all matter. Only a few of these fundamental particles are able to deflect photons in this way, so we have a good idea of the physical structure of anything which is visible to us. As an example, we know that these apparitions could not be made of neutrinos as they can only interact with the weak nuclear force – electromagnetism (light) has no effect on them and is not affected BY them.
Considering the potential for bias in the eyewitness reports which you consider important I would suggest that your best hope for actually proving any of these phenomena is experimentation by skeptics using the scientific method. This would remove any possibility of selection bias regarding the results and the scientific method itself would naturally rule out any alternative explanation. Science is not the enemy here. It isn’t some party-pooping force which ridicules peoples beliefs. It is a way of ascertaining the truth; nothing more.
A brief note on skepticism: People are often accused of forgery in these cases because it is often accurate. You have recently had to point out a hoax to your readers (giant skeletons) after some rather ambarrassing comments about how this is proof [insert belief of choice here]. I rather enjoy watching Fact or Faked on the Sci-Fi channel (in the UK, anyway) and the participants finest moments come when they suspect that a video they are investigating is fraudulent. Skepticism is healthy; it encourages people to prove their assertions. This is why the LHC was built – to verify the existence of the Higgs field, among other things. Repeatedly stating that something cannot be explained by science without clearly saying why it can’t seems, to a skeptic, as though you are simply trying to prevent those who can disprove these phenomena from doing so. I suspect this is not your intent, but without having a concise reason for saying that they are beyond science, this is exactly how it would look to some. Surely you can see why many are accused of dishonesty?
Hey Chris,
This is an endless topic like i mentioned in the post. We could keep going around and around in circles, however either way you cannot logically put your beliefs or ideas onto other people based on what you solely believe. That is your opinion, not a fact. Everyone has there own opinion. If someone sees a ghost or has an experience with a loved one that passed away and came to say goodbye which is common you can’t just accuse it of mind tricks or something else. You need to be open to all possibilities exactly like science. Like i said everyone has there own opinion and we should respect everyone’s thoughts.
Certain aspects of science on occasions can be disproved as well as we all know throughout history. They may have been close to the real theory on a subject but after looking at it more realized what back then would of seemed like science fiction. Anyways i am getting off track, I don’t accuse people of lying because i for one have had experiences in haunted houses. Heck everyone that visited, skeptic or not had experiences, it was not up to what you believe in that situation. I never believed in the after life until then. And i am a well educated person who likes to consider all possibilities. I was not even brought up to believe in ghosts either so my experience was not based on preconceived images in the brain. I never even watched a scary movie until i was like 12 or 13 either. Way after noticing haunting’s in the house we lived in. By suggesting all those that have these experiences in there life are hoaxes is avoiding the subject really. And it is just your opinion which you are entitled to as well.
Yes i have seen that show ( fact or fiction ) and i know as well that some things just are not real, i am not arguing with you there, however that does not mean all are not real, i do not blindly believe in anything, we all make up our own mind based on experiences do we not. Anyways like i said this can keep going around in circles. And lastly yes any topic i start here on this site, if i find is not real i will add that to the comments, however there is no embarrassment in the matter, all topics deserved to be discussed whether they are exposed or not.
You cannot seriously be trying to compare the pseudoscience of psychology with physical science, can you? There are just as many holes in faith in modern psychology as there are holes in the scientific merits of faith in god and ghosts. Calling psychology science is like calling philosophy science.
Spoken by someone who has no knowledge of the subject. Interestingly, there is a psychological explanation for your claims. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and is a cognitive bias which causes the unskilled to overestimate their knowledge of a subject. The skilled individuals have a far more accurate grasp of their abilities.
Science is a method by which phenomena can be explained by theories. This is perfectly applicable to psychology. I have performed a few psychological experiments and can state, as a student of Medical Genetics, that it has as valid a scientific basis as the biochemistry I am currently immersed in.
Try to be a little less ignorant in future.
Ghosts are not more than this http://blog.best-bookings.com/en/files/2011/12/how-to-get-rid-of-ghosts.jpg to me.
I don’t beileve in heaven or hell, but i do beileve in life after death, can ghosts prove this?? if they exist.
GO TO CHURCH!!!!!!
Its a tough debate indeed.I am currently researching and visiting (albeit illegally) rumored haunted locations here and there) i have had “questionable experiances” and some so good i dont belive them myself, BUT, they have not been on “my terms” therefore i continue to search for the “silver bullet” of evidence, i dont care about proving it to anyone else but myself, not because i am selfish but because we humans need to get personally burned by the flame in order to believe fire burns, get it? anyways i subscribe to no belief or dis-belief, i am neutral and open minded, but i would ask some assistance from the population.If anyone has a personal paranormal experiance to share and that they live anywhere within the contours of quebec,montreal or ontario canada, then message me on my facebook page,Manny Porco, because id love to investigate the “alleged haunting” PERSONALLY.like the saying goes, if you want something done right(or in this case done real) then do it yourself, right?, i NEED to know if its true, since friends and family have been passing away, i cant go on with the notion of “maybe” in my life, i need to find the definite “yes” or “no” at any cost, even if it means meeting the perverbeal devil himself face to face, so to speak.Thanks.
Thanks for sharing Manny, good luck on your quest, I am sure you will find answers sooner or later.
Carl Sagan, a well known scientist and atheist, was more willing to except creation by ET’s than he was by some omnipotent being. Well that being said, while he is entitled to his opinion, NO evidence supports either one to be more likely. We can talk about the vastness of the universe, which many believe to be infinite(yet another “fact” that can’t ever be validated), and see that there are at least too many possibilities to ever accurately calculate, or we can pretend we actually know how things work. In my opinion, much of science is just as much a leap of faith as religion is. I do admit, some things are more likely than others, but this doesn’t constitute truth. Ultimately, immediately dispelling anything as without merit on only a cursory glance is not only childish, it is downright irresponsible. Hypocrisy, thy name is science and religion. Written by a TRUE skeptic.
Hey Eric,
Science so far can only prove so much, there are many limits because like you said the universe is just way to big.. Once we look far enough it is all basically theory. However the good aspect of science is we can look at what we can see and calculate theories that are backed up in multiple ways making pretty much a fact. Like, we know as fact the Earth revolves around the Sun whereas in most religions the Earth was believed to be flat.. We now know the Sun is a powerful Star and not a God looking down as a second example which many religions believed as well. So some aspects of science have proven religion wrong however there is still always limits where science cannot prove especially on a paranormal side or spiritual side where experience is mostly internal.
Regards,
Timon,
I agree, we do know that the earth rotates around the sun. What we do not KNOW, however, is why. The prevailing theory is Einstein’s theory of relativity, but even that has been problematic when delving into the the realm of quantum physics. The “fact” that the earth was flat was at one point the prevailing scientific theory in the not so distant past, and theoretically, if the universe only exists in two dimensions, not entirely untrue. The point I am trying to make is that 99.999999999999999% of science is theory, and most scientists will even tell you in terms of what the leading theory is. Even with the advent of computer technology, there will always be more questions than can ever be answered. Remember regardless of how amazing these machines are with their near instantaneous access to specific information, they are still limited by the code input by lowly human beings. For a point of reference, look at the weather models that predict daily forecasts. They’re never wrong, are they? There
does not, and will not exist a “theory of everything.” As an agnostic, I believe there is much that cannot be known and will never be known. This doesn’t keep me from seeking, it just tempers my language in my claims.
Hey Eric,
Also the reference of Newtons law on Gravity theory helps try to explain the orbit as well..
The equation being –
F = G m1 m2 / r^2
Basically put, it refers to the pull of the sun being a similar pull to the opposite of the earth by other planets etc.. Quite confusing theory but a theory that has been used many times. Gravity pulls it in but only so far.. It is also possible that a new theory could be correct as well which is not just that concept… The newer theory is that the universe itself is moving around a larger universe and that also is creating another type of gravitational pull to it so while we are attracted to the sun, the movement of the universe which we cannot detect due to the movement of all universes is pulling outward at the same time. Thus creating a spinning effect, similar to experiments on earth that do similar..
The video below gives an example of possibility.
Eric W
Quote–
The “fact” that the earth was flat was at one point the prevailing scientific theory in the not so distant past,
End quote–
No, it wasn’t. It’s a well established fact that church dagma was the reason behind that so-called theory of a flat earth, and “Galileo” 1564-1642; is a prime example (if you’re willing to look it up) because he provided proof that the earth moves around the Sun, and this was against the established doctrine in Rome.
And for his so-called “blasphemy” the church had sentened Galileo to in home confinement for the remainder of his life.
Please, Eric. The only thing I ask is that you do try to educate yourself on such matters.
Hey,
Depends on how far you see as distant, to me even 1564 to 1642 with Galileo in human history is still only 400 to 500 years ago.. That was only his opinion as well, many ( not all ) did not believe his theory until much later.
Regards,
It always takes time in regards to such a theories to take root and flourish… especially when the church was in complete and absolute control, or has that fact merely slipped your mind?
At the time, a king couldn’t even get a coronation without the backing of the church because, quite frankly, the church owned the state.
This is why that theory wasn’t even considered until much later, because to question established church doctrine would literally mean sentence of torture, or death.
All the best
Troy
For some reason my last comment didn’t post. I don’t know how it wouldn’t make through moderation: no swears, no derogatory language. Whatever. Thems the breaks. The basic, and I do mean basic (I really don’t feel like rehashing), gist is this: Science and religion are both forever changing, some may even say evolving. What was held as scientific “fact” centuries ago is not even recognizable by today’s standards. Same with dominant religions of the world. The simple fact is this, who I am I to question your beliefs(or anyone else’s, for that matter)? Who can really prove any kind of “divine” knowledge? Sure scientists think they can, which they do through theories(laughable, I know), and religious folks “know” they can, which they do by the written texts of their chosen faith. What is abundantly obvious to me, is that neither one’s true knowledge is any greater. Neither group seems to be thinking for themselves. That’s alright too. I choose free thought.
I meant “who am I to.” I apologize for the typo.
Hey Eric,
There is automatic filters in place, occasionally they trigger up..
I think it could be legitimately argued that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is far more likely, but still enormously improbable. Science is a basis for proving or refuting individual hypotheses and to say that these are not indicative of “truth” is disingenuous. Having a sound empirical basis for an explanation of some form of phenomena removes faith from the equation. Faith is, by definition, unfounded belief: this does not apply when there is evidence supporting a particular hypothesis. As soon as you have some corroboration, especially if it is unique to one hypothesis, the element of faith is dramatically reduced.
By your standards it would be impossible to know anything for certain; a view which is an active hindrance to everything important about humans. You don’t “know” that you aren’t in the matrix right now, so what should you do to cover for this eventuality?
I’ll readily admit that not all scientists exercise due objectivity at all times, but the peer-review process does. Others are free to disagree with methods, conclusions and results. In such a forum the only reason an idea is dismissed outright is when it conflicts with established facts which have been verified. There is nothing hypocritical or irresponsible about this.
Incidentally, the universe is thought to be FINITE in extent, but with certain boundary conditions which mean it has no edges. It is possible for a finite space to be infinite in extent in such a situation, as the same space would be travelled ad infinitum.
Actually, science can disprove the existence of ghosts. Because ghosts interact with the physical world, science can observe these manifestations critically and objectively. Furthermore, the people who claim to have had these experiences could be lying, are ignorant of how certain technologies work (e.g. odd shapes, glimmers, rings, etc. after taking a picture with a camera; I once had a person believe that these circles of various sizes were angels when she was attending a church meeting. A photographer educated her), are so open-minded that when they have become incompetent of conjecturing a rational explanation they then conclude it must have been supernatural.
I grant that there is a possibility that some paranormal world exists, but, in my studies, I have not found a shred of convincing evidence eschewed from all prejudices, data mining, deceptive experimentations that have been tampered, and were not supported by other people who already believed in the preternatural anyway.
But because of the lack of evidence, it would seem that its consistency is conceiving an evidence of absence of the paranormal. Authentic mediums, psychics, what-have-you have not been found or recorded; and if they insist the claim that they are authentic, they will not accept any challenges, or they do accept the challenges but end-up disproving their own claims. James Randi is popular in debunking these frauds.
Anyway, science can prove or disprove the existence of ghosts, and the evidence that they have gathered points towards their nonexistence.
This world is big enough. No ghosts need apply.
Hey,
I think that you have never obviously lived in a haunted house. Ghost sightings are common all throughout the world as well, just because science cannot prove it yet does not mean it does not exist just that it has not been proven. It may be beyond science as we know it just yet as many things in life are not easily solved. The infinity of the universe as an example and another the power of thought. Each one entails theories but they are limited to how far they can see. As an example, just because science cannot prove the universe is infinite does also not mean it is not.
It just means we are not able to see so far and are limited to basic understanding.
I am a Nigerian, Born and Raised in the States, to the best of my knowledge ghost do exist, science might not prove it but it does exist, I have encountered one so I know, U can’t write their existence off simply because it is not scientifically proven. Just like every one is entitled to their own believe, do not criticize others because of their beliefs, Thank you
Then you have to give proof about your encounter with a ghost thing to prove that you are right. Otherwise no one believe your story.
Science is a way of analysing a hypothesis to determine whether it is true. If the scientific method can find no reason to suspect that a hypothesis IS true then it is not. We CAN dismiss the notion because there has NEVER been ANY reason to think that they exist.
You’re perfectly entitled to an opinion, but that doesn’t mean you’re not wrong. And any criticism you receive for believing something that is largely disproven is entirely justified. Here’s an example that will be pretty familiar to you: if I happened to have an opinion that black skin makes a person inferior, should that belief be exempt from criticism? We know it to be incorrect, so I would expect people to rapidly demonstrate that such a belief is false. The same goes for a belief in ghosts. This belief requires that we accept certain phenomena as factual, despite them being wholly unsupported by the evidence. It is not a tenable claim and is a perfectly viable target for criticism.
Well sometimes people says that If we can’t see the air that doesn’t means it does not exists. Yea true but what about ghosts? everyone can feel the air but only some people says that they can or they have feel them (ghosts). Any physical thing if exists must feel by everyone. No, wait! they are physical things? I don’t think so, then may be they are the unidentified personalities occurs in someone’s mind. We always hear the stories about the ghosts but yet no proof. No evidences no belief.
The argument that since science cant disprove it then we should all believe it is ridiculous. This is the same argument theists use to prove the existence of god, the fact is that since you cannot prove it, then we assume it is not true. It is NOT the other way around.
I agree with you Julian, the proof of a claim whether ghosts or religious beliefs or anything supernatural is on the defendant of that belief. However at the same time, it is still a topic worth exploring and investigating in any way possible with science or similar. Also, whether something can be proven to the masses, personal experiences can prove certain logic to owns own belief. As an example, being brought up in a haunted house makes one believe in ghosts whether predisposed to any belief system to the situation. While this cannot be proven with science as yet does not mean it is not real to the personal experience of the individual.
But at the same time that is personal belief from ones own experiences and like any personal belief as a topic, is not a matter of fact ( with science ) to enforce on others as something others should believe in as well. That is up to the person to decide that one based on there own personal experiences in life and every one should make there own choice there.
Regards,
A) If ghosts (or whatever this phenomenon is) exists in our universe, it is bound by the laws of physics
B) If it is bound by the laws of physics, it is testable by science
C) Ghosts should be testable by science
Saying that ghosts don’t exist because science has never provided “evidence” for them is disingenuous. This phenomenon may not be real, but nobody with real scientific credentials has even tried looking. People running around old houses with EMF meters and other electronic gadgets are providing no useful information if what they are doing isn’t grounded in hypotheses and predictions. It is almost all confirmation bias.