Random Acts of Kindness, or God?

[MyNameIsTerry]

Oh, and Fishman, how could we forget Red Dwarf? Plenty of episodes for you there whether Timeslides, the parallel reality one, Angels & Demons, the Ace Rimmer theme and the infamous Rimmerworld!

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast"

Edit: and not forgetting Backwards. Earth running backwards in time. "In a few decades WW2 will start and suddenly millions of people will suddenly spring to life", "yeah but what about the bad things like at Christmas Santa Claus is the evil b@stard who sneaks down the chimney and steals all the kids toys."

[AntsyVee]

If I thought that the only things that existed were things that had only been discovered then I would be utterly undermining science.

Remember, just because I’m saying there’s no evidence of something doesn’t mean I’m categorically stating it doesn’t exist. People around here would do well to learn the difference.

Im not implying you said anything specific Gary, I’m just pointing this out for the discussion in general. I personally think science and religious/spiritual beliefs can coexist.

[NoraB]

Well, my argument is that your experience IS explainable using normal scientific understanding.

Science has several theories for why I saw a ghost, but it still doesn't mean that ghosts don't exist and that my experience wasn't real.

There’s no scientific evidence of ghosts, spirits or the afterlife, so for me that’s where the story begins and ends.

Well that's a very small world you have there, Gary!

Again, just because something hasn't been scientifically 'proven' doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Science is a game changer, for sure. It's helped to shape our world as we know it, but it has limits..

Science cannot make moral or aesthetic judgements but we accept that these things exist anyway and these things are an fundamental part of life.

NO scientific theory has ever been proved beyond any doubt, or ever will be unless robots take over the planet - because scientists tend to have a pulse, and to be human is to make mistakes.

Also, science has drawn NO conclusions about the supernatural and some people (like you) take that to mean that ghosts and the afterlife doesn't exist whereas these things do exist to billions of people all over the world. What makes YOU right, and all those people wrong?

You put your faith into science which has been proved to be wrong time and time again because science isn't infallible. Scientists gave the thumbs up to a wonder drug called Thalidomide in the late 1950s in Germany. The drug was promoted to help with morning sickness, amongst other things, but turned out to be toxic to the developing foetus and the results were catastrophic!

Narnia hasn’t been proven to exist, maybe that means it might exist? It makes no logical sense.

Sorry to break this to you Gary, but Narnia is a fantasy world created by a dude called C.S Lewis...

I’m putting forth the most logical explanation. I of course could be wrong, it’s just that I’m far far more likely to be right, based on the evidence, or lack thereof.

My issue is that this is the obligatory 'of course I could be wrong' sandwiched in-between 'the most logical' and 'I'm far far - more likely to be right.

And you could also be very very wrong, because, you know what? NOBODY REALLY KNOWS!

You seem to be more concerned with wanting it to be true rather than the story actually standing up to scientific scrutiny. Why is that? Surely if you’re so confident in a belief you’d have no problem having that belief scrutinised? If you’re annoyed at someone having a go at “debunking” it then perhaps the story doesn’t quite have the rock foundations you think they have.

Debunking is a pseudoskeptic tactic and it would seem that you don't understand the difference between this and scrutiny.

There's no substance to your arguments, Gary. No meat. It's all veg and by that I mean that you keep trawling out the same old 'no proof', 'scientific method' la la la la la la comments that I've seen a thousand times - throwing in ridiculous comparisons like pink unicorns, giant marshmallows and now the fictional Narnia as way of argument?

Have you heard of Hayley Steven's? She's a prolific paranormal investigator and sceptic - critical thinker - humanist - all that jazz. However, her mother died three years ago and that changed her attitude somewhat. Maybe you'd like to read her blog post and understand how experience changes perspective? You'll find it on Hayley is a Ghost posted in 2017.

“When you’re lying in the dark alone, in a strange room, in an old house, it is comforting to hold on to science, to find sanctuary in physics, and to reassure yourself that ghosts probably don’t exist. But when you have just lost a person you loved, when you are that kind of alone in the dark, it is comforting to know, that they might.” Danny Robins

I don't know if you still have your mum and dad, but I don't. I haven't had a dad for 25 years or a mum for almost a decade. I miss them. I miss being a daughter. I haven't spoken about my most personal experiences with my mother after she died because her death hurt me the most, and still does. I don't want those experiences debunked or ridiculed. It doesn't matter if my mind played tricks on me. It doesn't matter if science - in general - thinks it didn't happen because it cannot measure and replicate it. There are scientists who do think the afterlife is real, just as there are scientists who believe in God. What matters is that my experiences comfort me because my mother is no longer around in the physical sense. Miss Stevens understands this now because she'd had an experience which she hasn't been able to find a logical reason for, but also because she doesn't want to. Of course I want my experiences to be true!

Bottom line: I am comfortable in my belief. Mine brings me hope, joy and comfort - things which science cannot prove but which humans universally accept - and it doesn't matter if what's beyond death is oblivion because there will be no part of me left to comprehend it - so it's a win-win situation for me. My belief gives me a warm feeling inside. I hope yours does the same for you cocker.

[Gary A]

Science has several theories for why I saw a ghost, but it still doesn't mean that ghosts don't exist and that my experience wasn't real.

You’re just repeating the same thing over and over now. I’ve said quite clearly that I can’t categorically say it was not a ghost but when faced with no evidence directly for or against an idea then surely you look for the simplest and most likely explanation? Again, that’s just simple logic is it not?

Well that's a very small world you have there, Gary!

Again, just because something hasn't been scientifically 'proven' doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Again, just the same argument worded slightly differently. Again, I don’t and cannot say categorically that these things don’t exist, all I’m saying is that there is no scientific evidence for it.

Also, science has drawn NO conclusions about the supernatural and some people (like you) take that to mean that ghosts and the afterlife doesn't exist whereas these things do exist to billions of people all over the world. What makes YOU right, and all those people wrong?

Now you’re blatantly putting words in my mouth and it’s getting slightly tiring. Please point out anywhere in this debate where I have said that ghosts and the afterlife categorically DO NOT exist? You can’t, because I haven’t said it. To repeat myself, all I’ve said is that there is no scientific evidence. Why don’t you try having a go at that without trying to put words in my mouth and arguing against them instead.

You put your faith into science which has been proved to be wrong time and time again because science isn't infallible. Scientists gave the thumbs up to a wonder drug called Thalidomide in the late 1950s in Germany. The drug was promoted to help with morning sickness, amongst other things, but turned out to be toxic to the developing foetus and the results were catastrophic!

Ah, so we’re now at a stage of being unable to dispute the lack of scientific evidence and now in the “let’s discredit science” part of this debate. Awesome. Science is very fallible, yes. Some of the biggest discoveries in history were made by mistake. Some of the most horrendous things, like neutron bombs, for example, have come from science. I’m not here to make science an angel, but science is a process of trying to test something until it either falls apart or stands up. It corrects itself when it’s wrong and constantly reviews itself.

The whole “I put my faith in science” part of your argument is an oxymoron. Science deals in evidence, it deals in fact and scrutiny. There is no such thing as faith in science, the idea is to prove or disprove based on evidence or lack thereof. You’ve already made it quite clear that you don’t like the idea of anyone “debunking” the paranormal, which tells me that you’re happy to put your faith in it rather than have it scrutinised.

Sorry to break this to you Gary, but Narnia is a fantasy world created by a dude called C.S Lewis...

It’s an idea put forth by a human being. As per your idea of human stories equating to evidence of existence, I’m not quite sure how there’s much of a difference between the two.

My issue is that this is the obligatory 'of course I could be wrong' sandwiched in-between 'the most logical' and 'I'm far far - more likely to be right.

And you could also be very very wrong, because, you know what? NOBODY REALLY KNOWS!

Again it hinges on what’s most likely. We aren’t dealing in absolutes here because neither of us have the evidence to do so. So when that’s the case the most logical thing to do is go for the most likely explanation. It’s more likely, based on what we know about the brain and how it works, that your experience was a product of your own mind rather than it actually being a true paranormal experience.

There's no substance to your arguments, Gary. No meat. It's all veg and by that I mean that you keep trawling out the same old 'no proof', 'scientific method' la la la la la la comments that I've seen a thousand times - throwing in ridiculous comparisons like pink unicorns, giant marshmallows and now the fictional Narnia as way of argument?

The whole “no scientific evidence” part is about as meaty as it can get. It’s a fact that you simply can’t overcome but you’ll keep trying anyway.

Have you heard of Hayley Steven's? She's a prolific paranormal investigator and sceptic - critical thinker - humanist - all that jazz. However, her mother died three years ago and that changed her attitude somewhat. Maybe you'd like to read her blog post and understand how experience changes perspective? You'll find it on Hayley is a Ghost posted in 2017.

Speaking of arguments with no substance, here’s yet more anecdotal “evidence” from someone who’s clearly allowed their emotions to overcome their logic....

“When you’re lying in the dark alone, in a strange room, in an old house, it is comforting to hold on to science, to find sanctuary in physics, and to reassure yourself that ghosts probably don’t exist. But when you have just lost a person you loved, when you are that kind of alone in the dark, it is comforting to know, that they might.” Danny Robins

Again, no evidence, just a tug on the old heart strings.

I don't know if you still have your mum and dad, but I don't. I haven't had a dad for 25 years or a mum for almost a decade. I miss them. I miss being a daughter. I haven't spoken about my most personal experiences with my mother after she died because her death hurt me the most, and still does. I don't want those experiences debunked or ridiculed. It doesn't matter if my mind played tricks on me. It doesn't matter if science - in general - thinks it didn't happen because it cannot measure and replicate it. There are scientists who do think the afterlife is real, just as there are scientists who believe in God. What matters is that my experiences comfort me because my mother is no longer around in the physical sense. Miss Stevens understands this now because she'd had an experience which she hasn't been able to find a logical reason for, but also because she doesn't want to. Of course I want my experiences to be true!

And again, I’m not trying to take that away. However, if you bring that idea into a public forum and declare it as evidence of the afterlife then surely you must accept that someone might just have something to say about that? My only argument with you is that you said there was SCIENTIFIC evidence of the afterlife. That’s what I’m arguing against here, not about how good your belief makes you feel.

Bottom line: I am comfortable in my belief. Mine brings me hope, joy and comfort - things which science cannot prove but which humans universally accept - and it doesn't matter if what's beyond death is oblivion because there will be no part of me left to comprehend it - so it's a win-win situation for me. My belief gives me a warm feeling inside. I hope yours does the same for you cocker.

Reality makes me feel warm. Family, friends, all the things anyone really needs. I miss my dead friends and relatives, I’d give anything for a 5 minute chat with my grandad who I miss severely. When I dream about him I feel happy when I wake up. I have an old video on my phone of him laughing at a joke. I play it when I’m sad. I’m not an emotionally closed off robot, I would love nothing more than to believe that we will meet again. However, I feel that I cannot artificially believe in something in order to make me feel better. I feel better when I think of how good our relationship was in life, that he loved me and every time I was with him I made him happy. That might not be good enough for some, but it is for me.

[pulisa]

Comfort and belief mean different things to different people. So. what if there isn't a scientific explanation? Not everything is black and white and those grey bits are significant and valid to many people. Emotion can't be quantified or qualified in a scientific context thank goodness. Whatever makes you happy and gives you strength is so important in life I feel, with or without a scientific seal of approval

[fishman65]

Oh, and Fishman, how could we forget Red Dwarf? Plenty of episodes for you there whether Timeslides, the parallel reality one, Angels & Demons, the Ace Rimmer theme and the infamous Rimmerworld!

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast"

Edit: and not forgetting Backwards. Earth running backwards in time. "In a few decades WW2 will start and suddenly millions of people will suddenly spring to life", "yeah but what about the bad things like at Christmas Santa Claus is the evil b@stard who sneaks down the chimney and steals all the kids toys."

I'm going to confess Terry, I've never seen a single episode of Red Dwarf

[Gary A]

Comfort and belief mean different things to different people. So. what if there isn't a scientific explanation? Not everything is black and white and those grey bits are significant and valid to many people. Emotion can't be quantified or qualified in a scientific context thank goodness. Whatever makes you happy and gives you strength is so important in life I feel, with or without a scientific seal of approval

See, this is where I’m failing to get my point across. I’m happy to see another person happy. If you’ve grieved for a loved one and you find something to blunt that grief, power to you I say.

However, when bringing that into a public forum I think it’s very important, also, to hear people who find comfort without having to invoke that type of thing.

This debate had seemed to be good natured and respectful, but at this point I’m out. Too much emotion and “feeling” involved for me. I fear I’m coming across as some cold hearted robot and that’s not what I am.

Whatever brings you comfort, keep it. God knows there is so much out there to make us all uncomfortable, so when you find a flip side to that then by all means cling on to it.

[fishman65]

See, this is where I’m failing to get my point across. I’m happy to see another person happy. If you’ve grieved for a loved one and you find something to blunt that grief, power to you I say.

However, when bringing that into a public forum I think it’s very important, also, to hear people who find comfort without having to invoke that type of thing.

This debate had seemed to be good natured and respectful, but at this point I’m out. Too much emotion and “feeling” involved for me. I fear I’m coming across as some cold hearted robot and that’s not what I am.

Whatever brings you comfort, keep it. God knows there is so much out there to make us all uncomfortable, so when you find a flip side to that then by all means cling on to it.

Fair play to you Gary. Nobody thinks you're cold hearted, you're just a logical thinker. And like you say, it's important we have counter argument otherwise a debate becomes unbalanced through bias. And right now it's science, via vaccination, that is giving us all hope.

[Gary A]

Fair play to you Gary. Nobody thinks you're cold hearted, you're just a logical thinker. And like you say, it's important we have counter argument otherwise a debate becomes unbalanced through bias. And right now it's science, via vaccination, that is giving us all hope.

Probably why I’m on my science soap box right now. Nature has given us a virus that’s killing thousands of people a day, it’s wreaked havoc on all of our lives. Science has found a way to fight back and there’s a heartbreaking amount of us choosing pseudoscience over science. I honestly have a passion for science but the past few months have made me realise I’m alarmingly alone in that regard.

[AntsyVee]

Probably why I’m on my science soap box right now. Nature has given us a virus that’s killing thousands of people a day, it’s wreaked havoc on all of our lives. Science has found a way to fight back and there’s a heartbreaking amount of us choosing pseudoscience over science. I honestly have a passion for science but the past few months have made me realise I’m alarmingly alone in that regard.

I’ve been feeling this way as well. I good coworker of mine, two degrees, is saying she won’t get the vaccine. I don’t understand. Another coworker of mine is spouting conspiracy theories. These are people with years and years of education.