The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?

[squasher]

Hi everyone once again.
With regards to Jarednjames comments. The fact that you only think you are slightly above average intelligence is generally a good marker that you are actually much higher than you think. Intelligent people very often understate their own intelligence as they are more aware of what they do not know. IQ actually is a good indicator of intelligence but not of education or common sense.
People ask why did I not put in cameras. Why? How much would it have cost to get continual 24 hour recording equipment in several rooms? We never received any bad ‘happenings’ or anything that disturbed us so there was no need. It did not disturb us strangely enough. If we installed cameras and then started posting ‘proof’ on sites like this we would soon have been subject to TV and media coverage. Why would we want that?
As for the comments about us ‘forgetting’ that we moved from room to room or moved things ourselves – do you honestly think we never took that into consideration? Initially that is what we thought was happening but as the events continued we made certain that we could track our movements. For instance when something kept disappearing from one of the drawers and then appearing later on we even got to the stage that could be called childish. All three of us would empty the drawer onto a table and then saying aloud what each object was we would replace it until the drawer was full. After going into the next room for several minutes we returned and found the missing object in its correct position in the drawer. We did this several times.
The comment about us forgetting about folding and ironing the clothes – we DID NOT possesses an iron so how would the creases have disappeared?
When the doors opened and closed by themselves our cats and dog would watch and move their heads together as if something was crossing the room and then returning before the door closed. That is not proof because we have no idea what the animals may or may not have been looking at. For us it was the easy movement of a door that normally was difficult to open and close that was strange. What could a film have proved? With modern day equipment I am sure that any film we would have taken of clothes floating across a room being folded would have been greeted with claims that it was all fixed anyway. If a ‘ghost’ dressed in medieval clothes was seen turning the light on and off everyone would say it was someone dressed up. I do not know how setting up cameras would have helped to be perfectly honest. I do not have the knowledge of what sort of equipment was needed but I am sure cameras would have proved nothing at all to be honest.
With regards to the debunking by Randi. I must still reiterate my claim that he often does not show that someone is a fake. When he bends spoons he has long sleeves on and he shows them bending in a totally different way to how Geller does it. Is it magic? I don’t believe in magic but no one can show how he does it. I have seen him take a packet of seeds and pour a few on his hand. Gently stroking them the seeds sprout and small shoots appear. Perhaps this is scientifically easy to show and it just a normal effect of heat and sweat and gentle massage. My point is that Randi cannot reproduce this in the same way. To debunk something you MUST show how the so called ‘magician’ did it and not show another way of doing it.
I really do wish I had known some of you guys when I lived at my house as I would have been happy for you to come for a short visit to see what I and friends and sceptics experienced.
I have known many people who after hearing the stories of my house have told me their stories. As with you I cannot accept their ‘proof’ because I was not there and cannot verify that what they are saying is truthful or exaggerated or just made up so I remain sceptical of other stories but I can no longer say that they are wrong as some of you say because I KNOW what happened in my house. Even though we never actually saw the ‘ghost’ we did hear and smell it on many occasions. How could that be measured so that someone would believe it? I really don’t know.
If anyone wants to hear in more detail of the ‘happenings’ and how we eliminated all possible normal explanations then I will be happy to write to you. It will be quite a long mail though as these events happened over a number of years.
Many thanks for all of your comments.

 

[Opus_723]

All of that response and you finish with this line.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you disagree with my last line? Or with the rest of my post before that line?

 

[JaredJames]

Squasher,

A high IQ simply means you did well on an IQ test.

You're telling me that you had the first, genuine, recordable evidence of potential ghost happenings (items changing rooms, let alone the ironing and folding) and you didn't try to get it on film?

The monetary value of such a place alone would have been huge. Get some good footage and once the ghost hunters see it they'll be begging you to let them in. Let alone what it could mean for the science community.

This is another classic example of people making extraordinary claims and for some reason not wanting to do anything with it. It doesn't make sense.

"Yeah, so we got these ghosts rearranging our furniture, but we figure it's best to just let them be. No point wasting money on cameras to record them and get some science altering footage."

Heck, I bet there would have been loads of ghost hunters willing to stake the place out with cameras and various equipment simply on the off-chance something happened, without any cost to you at all.

Regarding your debunking of Geller, this is just non-sense. "To debunk something you MUST show how the so called ‘magician’ did it and not show another way of doing it.". What? The whole point of debunking it is coming up for an explanation of how it happens. It doesn't have to be the exact way they do it, but the conditions must match.

If I can make a ball disappear and claim it is paranormal powers I have that let me do it, and then you under identical circumstances, can reproduce the effect without the paranormal claim, it is debunked. The whole point of debunking is coming up with a "how it's done / happens" without the need for anything out of the ordinary.

I agree that if Randi had long sleeves and Geller didn't, that could be considered a different method. But it doesn't default to Geller being paranormal, it simply means he has a way of doing it we don't know yet. A good magician will have tricks no one else can perform, that's one of the best ways to make money in the business.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is another classic example of people making extraordinary claims and for some reason not wanting to do anything with it. It doesn't make sense.

Hear hear. Squasher, it will be a shame if you ever have a close encounter with an extraterrestrial. You will not even bother to take pictures of it, despite the fact that it would change the world as we know it.

But it doesn't default to Geller being paranormal, it simply means he has a way of doing it we don't know yet.

If even one magician were for real, he would allow himself to be tested under controlled circumstances that an external source sets, not circumstances he sets himself.

What sane legitimately-magical performer would try to hide the very thing that supposedly sets him apart as legit from every other false magician since the dawn of time?

 

[squasher]

Jarednjames

Despite the existence of numerous definitions of intelligence, there is only one common method to measure intelligence that is accepted worldwide viz. Intelligent Quotient (IQ) test. It is also called "Binet and Simon Test" that was published in 1905. This test has withstood the test of time even after a century. The IQ test continues to be the only universally accepted method of measuring human intelligence.

IQ tests do not measure the absolute intelligence of a person but they measure the person's intelligence in respect of the other person. The average IQ score is taken as 100. The higher than 100 score indicates that the person is more intelligent than the average person and less than 100 score indicates below average intelligence.

These IQ tests have become extremely popular over the years and almost universally applied for selection of the graduates and postgraduate students by the examinations like SAT or GRE. In most of the countries similar tests are conducted for college and university admissions. Even for selection of the candidates for jobs, often the IQ score is the quickest and most important criterion for selection.

The reason why IQ scores are such a universally accepted criterion for deciding the suitability of a person for a job or a higher course of study is not without any basis. There have been several studies which have confirmed that the people with high IQ score have much better chances of success in life. For example in an study conducted in 1925 by Lewis Terman followed the lives of the people who had IQ of 130 or more to find the relationship between the high intelligence and occupational success and social adjustment. The study established that on the average, the people with higher IQ have earned more degrees, attained higher occupational success and salaries, experienced better personal and social adjustments and found to be healthier at each age than the average adult.

So, yes, IQ tests do measure intelligence.

Why do young people assume that monetary value is the be all and end all of life?
At the time I was one of the top worlds squash players so why would I want loads of ghost hunters staking the place out with cameras etc upsetting my routine and scaring my animals? I did not want to become famous for having ‘ghosts’ around the house. I did not want loads of people and TV crews outside my house. It was hard enough trying to work my way up the world squash rankings.
The house is still there if anyone wishes to go and do the tests. It will no longer be my problem. I do agree that the scientific community would be fascinated by any results found and perhaps we should have done something in that area but we really did not want loads of people (which it would have been once word got out) invading our privacy. I hope you can understand that. It was bad enough on the pro. squash circuit which is not that well known as a sport but the privacy invasions there were enough for me. Once you have experienced it you do not want to escalate it.
Having said that, now that I am older I probably would do as you suggest but I honestly felt no need to do it at the time. I think I realize how frustrating it must be for you reading what I am saying. I feel the same when I get patients coming to me for health and nutrition advice and I hear what they want and do not want to do.
Bear in mind, also, that this was over 25 years ago and there was not the availability, unlike today, of internet sites to get 'ghost hunters' to check out the house. TV shows did not exist like the ones on ghosts nowadays. We suffered ridicule even from our friends until they came to the house. What would we have gone through from complete strangers?
Thanks again for the comments and the interest shown.
By the way DaveC426913. Your comment 'Hear hear. Squasher, it will be a shame if you ever have a close encounter with an extraterrestrial. You will not even bother to take pictures of it, despite the fact that it would change the world as we know it.'
Was that comment really necessary? Very scientific that!
When you get comments like that you wonder why I did not try to bring the media into my house.

 

[squasher]

I am not sure if I am allowed to post a link or not. If not then I do apologise in advance.
I just wanted to reply to DaveC426913 when he says about 'magicians' not being tested under controlled conditions. This is simply not true. If you look at this link it is very interesting.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page18.htm

 

[JaredJames]

You're just making excuses now. How do cameras interrupt your routine?

Besides, if the whole drawer thing is true, you could have done that on camera in a matter of hours. No big disruption.

You have to look at it like this. You had in your house, the worlds first genuine ghostly presence doing various things around your house and you didn't do anything with it.

Me seeing a kid ride past my house on a bike is something I do nothing about. Me noticing clothes going from being in a crumpled pile to neatly ironed and folded is something I want to show everyone. Something which could change the world as we know it. But for some reason, you didn't do this.

Are you honestly going to tell me that the above possibility was out weighed by your sports career?

"Why do young people assume that monetary value is the be all and end all of life? "

Did I say it was? I just pointed out you could make some money off it.

What I am saying is that an experience such as yours, if true and provable, would literally change science. Why would you not do anything with it?

This is no different to all of these people who claim to have built perpetual motion machines but for some unknown reason decide that they're not showing anyone else.

It is under controlled conditions that frauds are discovered. To date there has never been a person able to pass any test given to them under controlled conditions when it comes to claims regarding the paranormal or magic or whatever you want to call it.

 

[squasher]

Why do you say I had the world's first genuine ghostly presence? What makes you think that it was the first? What a weird thing to say. I am maybe the first on this site to say that they have experienced 'ghostly presence' first hand but I cannot believe I am the first in the world.
The drawer thing was true but why would I want to go out and buy expensive video equipment (it was 25 years ago) just to continually monitor the drawer? What sort of equipment would I have needed that could have captured continual footage of an event that happened occasionally, perhaps once every few months?
I did not want to make money off loads of people continually at my door, and you can guarantee that would happen if I had made my claims publically.
You may be unaware of the routine of a professional athlete but I can assure you that my sport came above everything else and the last thing I would have wanted was lots of people around my house at all hours. Find a top world sportsman and ask them the same question. I am not using that as an excuse but as a genuine reason.
As to your last sentence then just look at the link I posted. There are many tests that have been done under scientific observation that cannot prove deception by the 'magician'. I am not saying that no deception has happened but it has not been found. It is interesting that Randi when confronted with these tests by respected scientists then tried to discredit the scientists.

 

[JaredJames]

Why do you say I had the world's first genuine ghostly presence? What makes you think that it was the first? What a weird thing to say. I am maybe the first on this site to say that they have experienced 'ghostly presence' first hand but I cannot believe I am the first in the world.

As before, I dismiss anything to do with ghosts as rubbish. If what you are saying is true, it would, at least to me, be the first real ghost experience and something we need on tape. Something that would change the world.

The drawer thing was true but why would I want to go out and buy expensive video equipment (it was 25 years ago) just to continually monitor the drawer? What sort of equipment would I have needed that could have captured continual footage of an event that happened occasionally, perhaps once every few months?

I refer you to your previous post:

All three of us would empty the drawer onto a table and then saying aloud what each object was we would replace it until the drawer was full. After going into the next room for several minutes we returned and found the missing object in its correct position in the drawer. We did this several times.

This is 'on demand' haunting. Something any ghost hunter would give their left nut for.
So all you need to do is have a camera on hand to capture the event. You wouldn't have to buy it.
Record you emptying the draw, listing the items within, then leaving (the camera stays on the draw) and then return later and re-list the objects within to see if it's changed. Simple.

I did not want to make money off loads of people continually at my door, and you can guarantee that would happen if I had made my claims publically.

There are thousands of haunted locations out there, only a few get bothered continuously. If yours proved genuine, you should welcome people doing tests on the location. Think of what it would do for science.

You may be unaware of the routine of a professional athlete but I can assure you that my sport came above everything else and the last thing I would have wanted was lots of people around my house at all hours. Find a top world sportsman and ask them the same question. I am not using that as an excuse but as a genuine reason.

They'd also need something contained within their house with world changing potential. Asking if sport comes above all else when they don't have this aspect doesn't quite match up and certainly isn't a fair question.

As to your last sentence then just look at the link I posted. There are many tests that have been done under scientific observation that cannot prove deception by the 'magician'. I am not saying that no deception has happened but it has not been found. It is interesting that Randi when confronted with these tests by respected scientists then tried to discredit the scientists.

Once again, no person has ever passed a test to prove paranormal/magic/mystic ability whilst conducted under controlled conditions.

 

[squasher]

JarednJames
I don't think that you thought your previous post out.
So I go out and buy a video camera and film the entire event. Do you honestly believe just from the film that no one would say that I altered the film, or cut the part where I put the missing object back, or had someone dress up as a ghost (whatever that may look like) and put the object back? You are talking about scientific evidence and you think that would suffice?
You say that no person has ever passed a test to prove paranormal/magic/mystic ability whilst conducted under controlled conditions. I cannot agree with that but say what hope would I have with a very dubious home film when scientific controlled tests do not convince you? This is why to prove my 'ghost' would take a lot of people in my house for a long time which would definitely affect my life.
You really do not realize what would be required to even make a few people believe in 'ghosts' unless they actually experience the event themselves.
As for the sport coming first above all else. Yes it did. Totally and utterly. You must talk to a top sportsman to even come close to understanding this. It is as fundamental to a sportsman as your drive to get some proof that ghosts do or do not exist.

 

[squasher]

A further interesting link done under controlled conditions and unable to be reproduced by any known scientific means. Very interesting.
http://www.urigeller.com/books/geller-papers/g6.htm

 

[JaredJames]

So I go out and buy a video camera and film the entire event. Do you honestly believe just from the film that no one would say that I altered the film, or cut the part where I put the missing object back, or had someone dress up as a ghost (whatever that may look like) and put the object back? You are talking about scientific evidence and you think that would suffice?

It certainly wouldn't. But why would you get someone to dress up? If it's happening on it's own you just list the items in the drawer, leave, come back and it's there again. Easy.
Of course it will look dodgy. But if there are no obvious signs of foul play you can invite people to try it for themselves. If it's real, you could leave the house and let scientists do their thing.

You say that no person has ever passed a test to prove paranormal/magic/mystic ability whilst conducted under controlled conditions. I cannot agree with that but say what hope would I have with a very dubious home film when scientific controlled tests do not convince you? This is why to prove my 'ghost' would take a lot of people in my house for a long time which would definitely affect my life.
You really do not realize what would be required to even make a few people believe in 'ghosts' unless they actually experience the event themselves.

Your initial video evidence is simply to get things started. It isn't meant as the definitive proof.

As for the sport coming first above all else. Yes it did. Totally and utterly. You must talk to a top sportsman to even come close to understanding this. It is as fundamental to a sportsman as your drive to get some proof that ghosts do or do not exist.

I'm an engineer. If I had the ability to change the world with this real haunting, I would do it. Even athletes aren't dumb enough to pass this up.

Which of the following would you choose?
"I will attempt to make it in sports"
or
"I have something that will revolutionise science"

So what you're saying is you chose to ignore this world changing, science shattering evidence of the paranormal in favour of a sports career and because you don't want to disrupt your own life?

Well if that is true, that is the most shallow and self absorbed thing I've ever heard.

You can't use Uri Geller as a source for your claim regarding testing. The reason for this should be obvious.

 

[squasher]

You are incredibly naive to believe that my house would be considered as a world shattering event and that it would revolutionise science. wow!
As you say my initial video would get things started. Starting what? Ridicule or serious investigation? Whatever it would start would then totally turn our lives upside down.
As for you making a comment about what a world class sportsman would or would not do then in this case I can definitely say that you really do not understand the workings of a driven athlete. Of course top sportsmen are self absorbed. That is part of the reason they get where they are.
As an engineer I bet I can say that you are not well known even in your own city/state let alone internationally. Until you get that situation you really are not qualified to express what top athletes can and can not feel. I do not mean that statement as an insult, so please do not take it as one, but it is made through experience of talking to people who are and are not public figures.
Instead of 'shallow and self absorbed' please put 'dedicated'.

Your last line just shows how closed you are to anything that you disagree with. Read the articles please. You can ignore the name Uri Geller but just read how the tests were made, who made them, how they were examined afterwards, and how they could not be reproduced even by trying to do it without any type of concealment or hidden tricks. They could not reproduce it using scientific methods. What it shows is that there are things that CANNOT be explained by science (at present) or cannot be debunked. Until it can be reproduced or explained then it must remain a possible paranormal event.
So going back to your original points. If a controlled scientific experiment shows something that cannot be explained in any way whatsoever and does not become a world shattering scientific discovery then why would my house suddenly become something that would revolutionise science? Randi would just say the scientists who came to my house were tricked by my sleight of hand and magical know how or he would try to discredit the observers by saying they only saw what they wanted to see. I am sure he would not travel to examine the house himself. So where would that leave me? An object of ridicule and jokes and my squash career probably destroyed because of the stress it all caused. Just sit back and think a little of what would happen.
If I found the cure for all diseases that would be a different thing. But do you really think my house would revolutionise science? I don't think so.
Anway, I am not as young as you and as it has gone past midnight here I am off to bed.
I really would like to continue this with you if you wish but perhaps it would be better via messages to each other as I think most other people may be getting a bit fed up of the topic. Maybe not though.
Thanks once more for the debate. Have a great evening wherever you are.

 

[FlexGunship]

Okay, I'm on my phone, so forgive the formatting.

1) Squasher: making a claim and not following up on it is a common folly of people who knowingly lie about paranormal claims. I'm NOT accusing you of lying, and sorry for being so blunt. But that is why we are all so skeptical.

I will make you a deal. If you are willing to demonstrate these events for me in person or by live teleconference, then I will pay you for your time. In return, I would like sole control over the revenue generated but will split it 20/80 for you/me. Your name will not appear on the Nobel prize. If you cannot make good on you claims, you only owe air fare and lodging. Deal?

2) Dave, we seem to be missing each other's points. My point is that activing in the brain from real or imagined events are within the purview of science. The brain might be complex, but it is not magical. The nature of personal experience is knowable if not directly relatable.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you say I had the world's first genuine ghostly presence? What makes you think that it was the first?

Because none of the rest of them have panned out. Yours would be the first.

So I go out and buy a video camera and film the entire event. Do you honestly believe just from the film that no one would say that I altered the film, or cut the part where I put the missing object back, or had someone dress up as a ghost (whatever that may look like) and put the object back? You are talking about scientific evidence and you think that would suffice?

Because since your is repeatable and consistent and not a hoax, professional crews would follow up, see it as genuine, and make world headlines.


Instead, what you are doing by not bothering is demonstrating that you know as well as we do that, when it comes down to it, this is just like every other ghost story since the dawn of time.

 

[DaveC426913]

I will make you a deal. If you are willing to demonstrate these events for me in person or by live teleconference, then I will pay you for your time. In return, I would like sole control over the revenue generated but will split it 20/80 for you/me. Your name will not appear on the Nobel prize. If you cannot make good on you claims, you only owe air fare and lodging. Deal?

I want in on this deal too!

If squasher doesn't want the 100 grand or so prize, I'll happily take a piece! If squasher is indeed corrrect, it'll be the easiest money we ever made!

 

[DaveC426913]

2) Dave, we seem to be missing each other's points. My point is that activing in the brain from real or imagined events are within the purview of science. The brain might be complex, but it is not magical. The nature of personal experience is knowable if not directly relatable.

The argument was "there is nothing that is beyond the purview of science".

Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God (as another of a near-inifinite list of subjects). Science does not say God exists, nor does it say God does not exist. Yet God is a very big part of the living portion of this universe (yes, even to those who do not believe God exists, it is still a big subject).

Another example. Science says nothing about why the universe is here. You cannot make a scientific statement refuting this. "There is no why" is not a scientific statement; it is a philosophical statement.

Science's official stance on these questions is "science sticks to the 'what' and the 'how'. Science is silent when it comes to any consideration of why."


The fact that you guys are not interested in discussing these subjects, and would instead prefer to discuss scientific subjects, in no way makes them less valid as subjects of discussion.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave as with various other topics such as ghosts and god, I dismiss the whole 'why' issue.

I'm still waiting to hear a convincing argument for there being a 'why', or even the need for it.

I agree, it certainly is my opinion and that's all it is. The point of quite a lot of my previous posts is I stand by this being my opinion, but I do not state it as fact. It would be wrong for me to state this as fact.

I will happily discuss any of these topics. But I won't sit and discuss a topic where opinion is spouted as fact and the boundary between the two is made blurry.

Squasher, I'm going to leave this debate with you. I can't discuss this topic with a person who thinks an attempt at a sporting career is more important than the amazing laundry ghost, and the ultimate storage technology that house seems to have.
Yes, that's sarcastic and I don't usually like to be so short with my responses, but if you can't understand what I've said (and subsequently Dave) I don't see how we can continue.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave as with various other topics such as ghosts and god, I dismiss the whole 'why' issue.

You are welcome to. Science is not.

Your claim was that there's nothing that science cannot explain. This is simply not true.

 

[JaredJames]

You are welcome to. Science is not.

Your claim was that there's nothing that science cannot explain. This is simply not true.

I disagree, I don't see why there is anything science cannot explain.

Just because science has "nothing to say" on various subjects, that doesn't mean it never will.

If it exists, why shouldn't science be able to explain it?

 

[DaveC426913]

I disagree, I don't see why there is anything science cannot explain.

Just because science has "nothing to say" on various subjects, that doesn't mean it never will.

If it exists, why shouldn't science be able to explain it?

I've just listed at least a dozen examples of subjects that fit the above criteria.

Yes, they might fall under the purview of science eventually - once/if some evidence comes to light. But that does not change the fact that ... (wait for it) ... science has nothing to say.


I thinkI've made my case sufficiently. I'd like to hear some more meaty attempts at refutation than "is not!"

So, what does science have to say about the existence of God?

 

[JaredJames]

I could talk about my
hurt feelings
my fear
my crisis of faith
my horrible nightmare
my vision of a ghostly figure of my dead grandmother
parallel universes
time before the Big Bang, the universe's First Cause.

I see nothing in that list which, whether now or in the future can't/couldn't be explained by science.

To say something "will never be explained by science" implies we can't observe and define it. I am yet to see anything which doesn't fall into that category.

(Ignore the bold, I had a plan but I'm too tired and couldn't be bothered to go back through it and change it.)

Why are you arguing with me regarding the "science has nothing to say"? I don't remember disagreeing with it. Like my previous post, just because it has nothing to say now, doesn't mean it won't in the future.

 

[DaveC426913]

To say something "will never be explained by science"

No one said that. Not you. Not me. Red herring.

Why are you arguing with me regarding the "science has nothing to say"? I don't remember disagreeing with it.

OK then.

 

[JaredJames]

No one said that. Not you. Not me. Red herring.

Apologies, that general topic is from way back in the discussion. Not sure if that exact phrase was mention or if it was implied.

 

[squasher]

Flexgunship, if you read my threads, which you obviously have not, you will see that I no longer live in the house but I can give you the address if you wish to contact the person living there and you can arrange with the owner any tests you wish.
Also you seem to miss the point. It occurred 25 years ago at a time when people did not make money from these sort of things. I remember seeing some programmes about paranormal events. One that stands out was a girl walking down a corridor and the lights swinging back and for, and another of some photos where a ghostly character appeared in the picture but was not there when the photo was taken. In both cases, and others that I cannot remember, experts examined the film and photo and could not find any form of trickery. My point with this is that when the events took place in my house I did not think in any way at all that I was experiencing the first true ghost in the world so it really was not a huge thing to me. So why would I have gone way out of my way to get it all down on camera when the events took place over a 10 year period and was not a daily occurrence? Even if I had done would the scientific community have believed it even if they sent in teams of experts with expensive monitoring equipment?
Take the moon landing. It has been shown that everything to do with the moon landing could have been done on the stage quite easily and that all transmissions could have been hoaxed. Many scientists say it was a hoax while others say it was real. What chance would a small team of photographers, crashing through my house, have of persuading the rest of the world if one of the most researched events ever still has hundreds of millions of doubters along with many respected scientists?
Dave, I know you do not believe me and I accept that. You are not the first nor will you be the last but please do not make the statement 'Instead, what you are doing by not bothering is demonstrating that you know as well as we do that, when it comes down to it, this is just like every other ghost story since the dawn of time' that basically says categorically I am lying. I know it is true as I have lived through it. Do not ever presume to try and say that I know I am lying. Tell me that you think I am lying by all means but it is absurd to try and tell me what I think . Perhaps you have some scientific test you can give to prove this? Just because you do not believe me then why should you start insulting me (not for the first time either). This is a mark of a bitter nasty person. Shame on you.
JarednJames, if you cannot understand why a top sportsman would put his career above something that he did not think was of Earth shattering significance that would probably totally destroy his career then you really are showing your youth and immaturity and total lack of respect for the wishes of another person. Not everyone is like you my friend and has to do everything the way that you want. You are going to have a lot of shocks and disappointments in your life if you keep thinking that way.
I really do believe that even if I had done all the tests and camera work that you have suggested then the results would be questioned regardless of how thorough the tests were. In that situation I am certain I would never have got to my number 2 in the world ranking but would have been known as the guy who is 'the ghost hoaxer' despite evidence showing that I was correct.
One thing I have noticed from the replies is that some of you are only motivated by fame and money and not really by the actual discovery, proof, or lack of. Sorry shape of society nowadays.
If you wish me to discuss this further please put a message in my box as I do not wish to return to this page.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Take the moon landing. It has been shown that everything to do with the moon landing could have been done on the stage quite easily and that all transmissions could have been hoaxed. Many scientists say it was a hoax while others say it was real. .

That is not true. You are free to describe personal experiences, but statements like this will get you banned - instantly. Please see our banned topics list and review the guidelines to avoid problems.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929
and
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2269439#post2269439

Also, you are only free to describe what happened. Fringe theories and non-mainstream explanations, are not allowed. For example, if your clothes magically folded during the night, you are free to say so, but you are not free to assume the proper explanation for this alleged event and argue the point.

 

[Chronos]

We are a fickle bunch and do not like being trifled with. Bad science is a phobia in this branch of the net.

 

[FlexGunship]

So, what does science have to say about the existence of God?

Existence? Nothing.

What does it have to say about his ability to listen to prayers, influence the natural course of events, design or create species, or interfere in any way with the order of the universe as science understands it? Everything!

Rarely is a claim of existence ever made without reference to an event that person's god supposedly influenced. "God cured my cancer." "God created this beautiful day." "Humans are a produce of evolution and design." "God (sic. Saint XXX) helped me get that job."

Every one of those is a SCIENTIFIC statement.

To posutlate the existence of a non-existent entity is trivial (diety or other... let's not get huung up on details). But assigning actions (even passive), influences, and intentions are profoundly non-trivial.

 

[DaveC426913]

Existence? Nothing.

What does it have to say about his ability to listen to prayers, influence the natural course of events, design or create species, or interfere in any way with the order of the universe as science understands it? Everything!

Rarely is a claim of existence ever made without reference to an event that person's god supposedly influenced. "God cured my cancer." "God created this beautiful day." "Humans are a produce of evolution and design." "God (sic. Saint XXX) helped me get that job."

Every one of those is a SCIENTIFIC statement.

Really? Show scientifically that God is not responsible for those events.

 

[FlexGunship]

Really? Show scientifically that God is not responsible for those events.

The burden of proof is quite the opposite. I will leave it to you to show that we need something in addition to science to explain these things.

 

[JaredJames]

Event X happens.

Science gives an explanation of what caused event X and how it happened.

If a person wants to claim "god caused event X" or "god influenced event X", it is not down to science to prove or disprove gods involvement. It is down to the claimant to prove that god was involved/caused it. Science has given its view on the matter, it has no more to say and no reason to try.

 

[DaveC426913]

The burden of proof is quite the opposite. I will leave it to you to show that we need something in addition to science to explain these things.

No, that's not the topic at-hand. You're stuck in a circular logic loop. You are demanding that I discuss a non-scientific topic within the bounds of science. I am saying it does not fall within the bounds of science. There are plenty of things to discuss that do not require the burden of proof. My feelings are one, as are the other dozen or so examples I listed.

You are insisting that these things can be explained with the realm of sciemce, so in that framework, you must act on it scientifically (you are imposing a burden of proof upon yourself) to show that it can be done.

I am perfectly capable of - and free to discuss - my feelings or dreams or the impact of God without having any requirement to show any verifiable evidence.

In short:

My feelings and dreams and belief about God are not subject to any burden of proof. They just are. I have successfully made the case that they are a valid topic of conversation.

Now you have the burden of proof to discuss them scientifically - to try to demonstate that my feelings are not valid, that I did not dream of my dead grandmother and that I am falsely believing what I believe about God.

 

[JaredJames]

For the record, I think I've lost the plot of this discussion. My whole argument has been stemming back to the initial issue regarding claims being made as factual requiring evidence to back them up and science being able to provide explanations.

I do agree, you are allowed to discuss what ever you like, however, you cannot assert as fact, your opinions. This is the whole purpose of my posts so far.

This whole proving something invalid issue, no idea.

 

[DaveC426913]

...you are allowed to discuss what ever you like, however, you cannot assert as fact, your opinions...

I agree 130%*.


* 110% is for slackers. 130% is the new 110%.

 

[FlexGunship]

No, that's not the topic at-hand. You're stuck in a circular logic loop. You are demanding that I discuss a non-scientific topic within the bounds of science. I am saying it does not fall within the bounds of science.

I disagree strongly. There is a core fact we are not agreeing on, and I'd like to call it out now.

My gripe is NOT with the issue of the existence or non-existence of a given thing (or non-thing). Let us avoid visiting that topic again.

My gripe is with the idea that one can claim REAL events are caused by or influenced by entities with questionable (or unproved) existence. Re-read that if necessary; I've chosen my words carefully.

If your god or ghosts could add even one iota of potential or kinetic energy to an equation, or change the temperature gradient of a jet fuel fire, or change (no matter how slightly) the chemical reaction of cancerous cells to chemotherapy then you MUST admit that this is a scientific statement.

Your equation isn't balanced. Laws of thermodynamics are not preserved. Quanta of energy are added. Valence electrons are gained.

If your god (not "your's" Dave, I'm using "you" figuratively... I hope you'll grant me the literary leg room) can influence the real world, then he can be found in the equations that describe that world.

Since even Laplace found no need of him, you have a lot of work ahead of you if you plan to posulate a diety that can so much as whisper in your ear (i.e. empart acoustic energy into the air in your ear canal).