This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Ghosts through internet /// phones /// radio stations
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thror
I think naivity.
Post by
HiVolt
what do u think?
Your friend is an idiot, and a very gullible one at that.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I think he was watching too much 'White Noise'.
Post by
560264
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I also heard Freddy Kruger can now get you via the internet
Ah fu-
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
i'm having a argument against a friend of mine....
he believes that ghosts can talk through the phone, chat online with other people, give people their addresses and when the "people" go to the address, they found the location of a graveyard.. he looks her up and finds that she has already passed away..... he freaks out and labels it as a ghost instead of thinking that he's being trolled..
here's another story;
a lady died.. she owned a old building that was bought out by a radio station.... then one day, the dead lady calls the radio station and tells them to leave the place... the radio station freaks out and moves to a new location......
long story short, he believes "ghosts" can communicate electronically to other people...... what do u think? -____-
I think he's presented a better case than you have. Your next steps should be to offer a counter argument: either a proof that ghosts cannot exist, an investigation into the presented evidence, or counter evidence of equal or greater weight.
Post by
HiVolt
I think he's presented a better case than you have. Your next steps should be to offer a counter argument: either a proof that ghosts cannot exist, an investigation into the presented evidence, or counter evidence of equal or greater weight.
You're laying the burden of proof on the wrong party here, HSR. His friend's evidence is only anecdotal, and not backed by any tangible empirical data. You want proof ghosts don't exist that lies in the same vein?
I have never had an experience with a ghost, apparition, specter, ghoul, wraith, or whatever else you want to call them. Therefore, ghosts do not exist.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think he's presented a better case than you have. Your next steps should be to offer a counter argument: either a proof that ghosts cannot exist, an investigation into the presented evidence, or counter evidence of equal or greater weight.
You're laying the burden of proof on the wrong party here, HSR. His friend's evidence is only anecdotal, and not backed by any tangible empirical data. You want proof ghosts don't exist that lies in the same vein?
Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.
And I don't want anything. But, I think it's silly to disregard anything unless you can offer.......either a proof that ghosts cannot exist, an investigation into the presented evidence, or counter evidence of equal or greater weight.
A fourth possibility would be to argue from first principles. But I think ghosts are far enough removed from those for that to be an issue.
Post by
Liquoid
A friend said it, it must be true.
Post by
tuckmuck203
Here's my evidence that ghosts don't exist. It has the same plausability. I've never encountered one, so they don't exist. It's similar to my view on god, which is: I have been given no reason to believe in god.If he knocks on my front door, pulls a million dollars from his beard, and turns water into wine, I'll believe in him.
I've been given no evidence that ghosts exist, and no evidence that they don't. I'm not going to believe in ghosts until I've been given evidence to the contrary, because I find the idea of ghosts too ghoulish a prospect. (Heh. Puns.)
Also,, anecdotal evidence is WORSE than no evidence. That's what's called pseudo-science, and just yesterday I learned about a pseudo-science that existed in the early 20th century that gave racists reasons to prosecute people they deemed inferior. I can't remember the name of it as of right now, but I could go find my textbook if you don't believe me. Too lazy do it without reason though.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.