If ghosts are real, then they aren’t supernatural

[RileyG]

I talked to a ghost…


Decades later I heard she is haunting a house

I should offer prayers for her soul.

 

[zippy2006]

I think...

Whether you are remains to be seen.

 

[PIckleRelations]

Enoch isn't canonical.

Guess that depends which canons you choose to accept or reject.

 

[RileyG]

Guess that depends which canons you choose to accept or reject.

Actually, I believe some Oriental Orthodox Churches accept it as canonical, my error. The RCC, Protestant, and EO do not accept Enoch as canonical. It's an interesting perspective, though. Maybe you are right. Some believed the pagan gods were really demons.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Some believed the pagan gods were really demons.

as there be gods many, and lords many … But to us there is but one

1 Corinthians 8:5-6

 

[RileyG]

as there be gods many, and lords many … But to us there is but one

1 Corinthians 8:5-6

notice the lower case g and small l. Christians have always been monotheistic, and Judaism, by that time, was monotheistic.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Christians have always been monotheistic, and Judaism, by that time, was monotheistic.

they prioritize one particular god

 

[RileyG]

they prioritize one particular god

Christians believe in only one God. As do Jews and Muslims.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Christians believe in only one God. As do Jews and Muslims.

they prioritize one particular god

 

[RileyG]

they prioritize one particular god

They do not believe that other "gods" exist.

 

[JohnEmmett]

They do not believe that other "gods" exist.

that is how they prioritize

 

[RileyG]

that is how they prioritize

Yes. We put our priority on the one true God.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Yes. We put our priority on the one true God.

whatever

 

[RileyG]

whatever

We do not believe that other gods exist. so we do not put a "priority" on them.

 

[Mountainmike]

If something exists, it is by definition natural.

The article from Big Think discusses the possibility that ghosts may be real, but not supernatural. The author, Dean Radin, is a parapsychologist who has spent his career studying the paranormal. He believes that there is evidence that ghosts may exist, but that they are not supernatural beings.​

​

Radin's evidence for ghosts comes from a variety of sources, including:​

• Eyewitness accounts: People have reported seeing ghosts for centuries. While some of these reports may be hoaxes, others are difficult to explain.
• Photographic evidence: Some people have taken photographs that appear to show ghosts. While these photographs can be faked, some of them are difficult to explain.
• Instrumental evidence: Some people have used electronic devices to detect ghosts. These devices have recorded strange readings that some people believe are evidence of ghosts.

Radin believes that the evidence for ghosts is strong enough to suggest that they may exist. However, he also believes that ghosts are not supernatural beings. He believes that they may be a form of energy that we do not yet understand.​

Radin's views on ghosts are controversial, but they are also thought-provoking. The article he wrote for Big Think is a valuable resource for anyone who is interested in exploring the possibility that ghosts may be real.​

​

Additional thoughts on the possibility of ghosts:​

• It is important to note that there is no scientific consensus on the existence of ghosts. Some scientists believe that the evidence for ghosts is not strong enough to support their existence. Others believe that the evidence is strong enough to warrant further investigation.
• It is also important to note that the definition of a "ghost" is not universally agreed upon. Some people believe that ghosts are the spirits of dead people. Others believe that ghosts are a form of energy or consciousness that is not bound by the laws of physics.
• Ultimately, the question of whether or not ghosts exist is a matter of personal belief. There is no scientific evidence that can definitively prove or disprove the existence of ghosts.

@Frank Robert
Let’s try conversing on another subject.

if ghosts exist in nature , undetected or not, explained or not, they are by definition natural.
The use of word “supernatural“ is arbitrary and subjective.

Science can do nothing with what it cannot repeat, does not repeat, and it cannot model,
But that’s because science has limited scope - a subset of evidence.

Answer for yourself Frank,
At what point do YOU accept ghosts as existing?
A hundred witnesses? Thousand? million? Professional witnesses?
Million plus ? Or photos?Or Multiple events?
At some point the question is what they are, not whether they are.
Where is that point for you?

The problem is of course “ beings” with free will cannot be relied on showing up “On demand”.
science has a problem with analysing that.
BTW photos before computers are best. much harder to fake before photoshop.

 

[JohnEmmett]

does it exist before you observe it?

You can answer if you existed an hour ago

 

[Mountainmike]

You can answer if you existed an hour ago

Off topic… I was pointing at one of the paradoxes that demonstrates that science is happy to postulate the seemingly absurd! Our materiaiistic world has faith in scientism .

 

[Mountainmike]

There needs to be a basis for distinguishing between what is natural or super natural without making an assumption about whether or not it exists. If everything that is considered to be supernatural is considered to be natural on the basis of if it exists, then that is essentially assuming that the supernatural is that which does not exist or is assuming that all that exists is natural.

Spot on for noting the problem.
Reality is the word supernatural is arbitrary and subjective.
if it exists in nature it is natural.

Consider a test case. The neutrino.
In this case it was postulated A in the thirties before evidrnce was found in the sixties.B

What was the status before A or B? Non existent?
If B had happened before A , what was its status between B and A? Supernatural? Or if A never happened?


Analyze this and you realise that supernatural is a purely subjective definition used by materialists to discard what offends their world view.

Reality is before B and A there is simply acceptance that we can’t say what is existent, other than by faith.

If B happens , it is status “postulated, “ not declared natural yet.
If A happens before B something is existent/ natural , but unexplained/ undefined.
But let’s look at what we mean by “ explained” . It just notes it follows the usual pattern.
and at philosophical level dealing with explanation Gravity is not an explanation natural or otherwise since we cannot say what gravity is , or why it is. The actual “cause”
We can only say what it usually does, because it usually obliges the model.
Mostly. Except where it doesnt work as well.

Cells certainly exist. They are natural . We have no idea of how the first one appeared, not where when or how.
Nor can we say how in what stages they evolved . So life is natural but the “ cause” of life is a belief. For everyone.

ghosts are either natural or non existent.
The evidence says natural.