God, gods, nothing, angels, demons, and UFOs.
I have been thinking about this topic, because of some questions
that have come my way. I'm not really anxious to start this thread
about this topic for a lot of reasons. Being a Christian for over 20
years I have been exposed to a variety of things, some I give God
credit for, some I give the devil credit for, some I give man credit
for, and some the I don’t have any idea realm too. Having said all of
that, I guess I’m going to start this thread about experiences.
The first thing I’m going to say is faith is going to play a major part
in this discussion, since there is no way to prove a lot that may be
said in this discussion. We can look at near death experiences that
have people seeing other dead people, angels, God, demons, Heaven
and Hell, or simply out of body experiences where they see the
what was going on in other rooms. Are those experiences real, are
they hallucinations because of drugs, lack of blood to the brain and
so on, can we know? Science does little here, because we cannot
measure, weight, or calculate anything. Science is simply blind to
events like these.
When someone says they had an experience with a ghost, a demon,
an angel, God, or gods can there be a way to determine if what they
are saying is true? Of course if someone does not believe in any of
those things, the automatic response is going to be, “No, they are not
real so they did not have a real experience. Therefore, because those
are not real they are strictly delusions, the phantoms residing only in
the thoughts of man, and they help build the true believers dreams
and nightmares. They just don’t have any basis in reality.” I believe
that more than likely will be the response by those who believe reality
does not have a supernatural element to it.
So I guess if there is an interest, we can go into this and talk about
the spiritual realities, or the lack thereof of ours and others
experiences.
Kelly
proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.
the eternal question is why does God refuse to irrefutably proove his existance, it would solve all wars and end all conflict, cease all discussion and allow mankind to co-exist at the pleasure of their master.
my answer is simply e doesn't exist and never did, and i'm perfectly comfortable with that. it leaves me completely satisfied. i have no bleak vision of the future nor pit of despair, i have no heaven or hell to look forward to but an Earth and a here and now to enjoy.
peace to you all.
oh and i don't believe any of them actually exist, except the ufo's.
which by definition until you know what they are they are unidentified.
do i believe they are aliens? well i believe in the potential for life on other worlds and that thier technology could be far in advance of our own, and that they could visit other worlds maybe even our own. do i think they have, probably not but only because there's nothing to suggest they have, except questionable testament and blurred pictures.
Originally posted by stokerI did not say I didn't believe in them, I only brought this up for
well as a fellow christian i belive in ghosts, angels, and demons all around us. why do you not? or have i read into what you write wrong!!. The angels, demons and ghosts (spirtits) are openly witten about in the bible, so im not sure what you wish to discuss.
discussion.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZSort of a self fullfilling belief system you have there? You don't see
I haven't seen any evidence for the existance of God, The Devil, angels, ghosts, UFO's, aliens etc.
Because of this I choose not to believe in them. Of course I could choose to believe in them. But I don't. Simple as that.
them because you don't believe in them. Not much different than
people who choose to believe in them, and do see evidence. So
who has the better eyes, since it seems according to you that it is
what you want to believe in that causes the evidence to be there or
not?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's not what I said.
Sort of a self fullfilling belief system you have there? You don't see
them because you don't believe in them. Not much different than
people who choose to believe in them, and do see evidence. So
who has the better eyes, since it seems according to you that it is
what you want to believe in that causes the evidence to be there or
not?
Kelly
What I said was, if I had evidence that they did exist then I would believe. I haven't so I don't believe in them.
Originally posted by XanthosNZwell if the evidence was apparant would not everyone belive. faith in god, jesus, is in that you have not seen. that is why im unafraid of death, but pray for my soul in this life . But ufo,s all i can say on this is why, it serves no reason to have someone come across space just to ignore what they find, unless they belive in star treks prime directive???
That's not what I said.
What I said was, if I had evidence that they did exist then I would believe. I haven't so I don't believe in them.
Originally posted by stokerI believe all evidence is apparant, but is it viewed properly is in
well if the evidence was apparant would not everyone belive. faith in god, jesus, is in that you have not seen. that is why im unafraid of death, but pray for my soul in this life . But ufo,s all i can say on this is why, it serves no reason to have someone come across space just to ignore what they find, unless they belive in star treks prime directive???
my opinion the correct question. Looking at something and drawing
the right conclusion is something we should all strive for, but knowing
we are getting it right is a matter of faith.
Kelly
KellyJay -
We can look at near death experiences that have people seeing other dead people
I believe this happens. There are a few possible explanations that immediately spring to mind. The first two involve the dead people seen as actually having been where they were seen in some way or another, and the last two involve hallucinations.
*Some 'part' of the dead person was actually there causing these perceptions, either in space near the observer or somehow directly in the mind. By this I mean something commonly called a 'soul' or 'spirit' manifested as a 'ghost'.
*The person's physical body actually got out of the grave or wherever it was and the observer saw it walking around.
*The person was hallucinating without outside intervention.
*Some third party planted hallucinations in the observer's mind.
Which should I believe? Well, since we're not talking about a specific case, then I need to stay general.
First, I claim any of these is possible. Claiming something is impossible is almost always irrational, as we don't know everything. So, I need to look at what is likely.
The first explanation is kind of vague and hard to examine. I suppose a logical extension of this explanation is that the other person's conciousness was actively involved in the experience. A problem I have with this idea is that it suggests a divorce of the mind from the body. All reliable research I am aware of shows an intimate relationship between mind and body. I do not see any reason to think the mind can exist without the body, unless some other sort of body, even if it were a computer or something, existed which would carefully mimic the body that the mind originally existed in to an amazing level of accuracy. I have no reason to think such a body exists or might exist. Technology has not advanced that far as far as I am aware and I have little reason to believe that any non-human candidates for such technology are in contact with humanity.
Now suppose this 'ghost' did actually exist as more than just a perception of the observer. What other evidence is there for it's existence besides the fact that it was observed? I've seen little such evidence. Now, I haven't devoted my life to looking for it, so it's totally possible I haven't seen it because my focus is elsewhere and I am already tentatively convinced this explanation is not correct. I haven't even seen enough evidence to make me want to look for more though, and I really don't think I am so biased against the idea of ghosts that I blind myself to what actually is there.
Hmm...I will stop there for now, as I don't want to spend hours on this post at this time.
I will however state without support at this time that I think the most likely explanation is the third one, that the person was hallucinating without outside intervention in most cases. Exceptions would be that the person was hallucinating with the intervention of an outside intelligence. Drugs could fall under either category, as they may have been administered for the purpose of causing hallucinations or they may not have been.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI will however state without support at this time that I think the most likely explanation is the third one, that the person was hallucinating without outside intervention in most cases. Exceptions would be that the person was hallucinating with the intervention of an outside intelligence. Drugs could fall under either category, as they may have been administered for the purpose of causing hallucinations or they may not have been.
KellyJay -
[b]We can look at near death experiences that have people seeing other dead people
I believe this happens. There are a few possible explanations that immediately spring to mind. The first two involve the dead people seen as actually having been where they were seen in some way or another, and the last two involve hallucin ...[text shortened]... may have been administered for the purpose of causing hallucinations or they may not have been.[/b]
Interesting, and had I not mistakely read someone else's post today
I more than likely would not have even thought of this, but why do
you think the most likely explanation is the third one?
Kelly
I'll answer you later. It will take some time and I am too lazy right now. I just put in a fair amount of time about the ghost hypothesis and I am tired of this kind of analytical thinking atm.
EDIT - The short answer is that the second explanation, like the first, has almost no evidence supporting it, while the third one has plenty of evidence supporting it. I think it would be hard to support a claim that the chemistry of the body and brain, possibly augmented by drugs or extreme circumstances, cannot cause hallucinations. Such a cause and effect relationship is easy to demonstrate.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIsn't this simply because in your view the possibility of the supernatural
I'll answer you later. It will take some time and I am too lazy right now. I just put in a fair amount of time about the ghost hypothesis and I am tired of this kind of analytical thinking atm.
EDIT - The short answer is that the second explanation, like the first, has almost no evidence supporting it, while the third one has plenty of evidence ...[text shortened]... nces, cannot cause hallucinations. Such a cause and effect relationship is easy to demonstrate.
isn't a possibility at this time? Had those explanations been part of
reality as you see it, wouldn’t that expand the number of possible
reasons for those events?
Kelly