Do you believe in ghosts? have you seen one?

@BlueSkyKing a ghost is a consciousness without the need for a living body.

@Harmony Evidence is detectable, measurable, and testable. Are ghosts physical in anyway? If there is something physical involved, can we use instruments to detect and measure? What sense organ of our body is used to identify a potential ghost? The brain isn’t a sense organ.

Why is belief required?

@BlueSkyKing it is only physically visible by one person.A bit like a rainbow. Everyone sees a slightly different rainbow(A physical phenomenon) It is precepted by a conscience. Not always detectable?

@BlueSkyKing only accept what you perceive to be true

@Harmony Everything is anecdotal still. Rainbows I know about. Richard Dawkins book [i]Unweaving the Rainbow[/i] goes into great details. So these "ghosts" don’t emit light and a source of light is needed? They don’t make sounds? Don’t interact with matter?

If it’s not science, it’s superstition.

@BlueSkyKing I think it might be spiritual or paranormal. A little bit higher than superstition.

@Harmony It’s always a lot easier to prove than to disprove. I like living in an evidence based world. Zero for paranormal.

@BlueSkyKing you might have so few beliefs .

@Harmony
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.

One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"

"Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov

@BlueSkyKing having evidence is not the only way to view this world. So open your mind. You might be surprised

@Harmony There are multiple alternatives? Link 'em up. I like to see the methodology.

@BlueSkyKing I find the existence of God indisputable

@Harmony You changed the subject.

@BlueSkyKing not really, I was just pointing out that lack of evidence is never a surety of something not really existing. Not just an anecdote or superstition

@Harmony Lack of evidence applies to any gods.

@BlueSkyKing of course, but lack of evidence all the same

@Harmony
The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument:

1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.

2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide [b]objective[/b] evidence for his existence.

3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.

4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God [b]may[/b] exist.

5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties [b]does not[/b] exist.

Recall that it is easier to falsify a hypothesis than verify one. The best we can do if the data support a particular god model is acknowledge that faith in such a God is rational. However, just as we should not use a failed physical model that does not work, it would be unwise for us to guide our lives by religions that worship any gods that fail to agree with the data.

[i]God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist[/i]. by Victor J. Stenger

@BlueSkyKing using science and physical attributes again to verify the truth again? What a waste of thinking power . I feel sorry for Victor j. Stenger.

@Harmony Got any other methodology that works equally or better?

@BlueSkyKing A methology that works is to accept the possibility of something existing and looking for a reason how it can exist without the laws of physics being involved. After all we cannot define how something in quantum physics exist but yet they do?