/sci/ - Science & Math

nope

Last I checked science isn't in the business of "allowing" things.

Perhaps you mean could ghosts exist? Sure, why not. Can you ever test if they exist? Nope. So should you believe they exist? Nope.

(Same with God.)

>>1424918

what if scientists just aren't smart enough yet to invent a machine to detects a ghost


what then?

>>1424927
Then ghosts must not be made out of matter and are unable to interact with this universe.

>>1424941

Carl Sagan has a dragon in his garage, too.

>>1424941

ghosts are the transdimensional entities that animate living beings

>>1424927
Then we'll find out the answer when we do make a machine that detects ghosts.

Thing is, we'll never know does it work if ghosts don't exist, so we can't stop searching.

So we'd rather not waste time just because something *might* exist.

>>1424948
[citation needed]

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev%E2%80%93Popov_ghost

>>1424952
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258576/Aleister-Crowley-The-Necronomicon

>>1424908
No, anything supernatural can not exist otherwise it would be natural.

>>1424970

Protip: your article should be peer reviewed.

>>1424988
Kind of misses the point. Also, go to x

Replace the word "ghost" with "the disembodied life force of a bipedal ape" and you will see how anthropocentric and idiotic ghosts look.

Ghost hunters are faggots. They do not calibrate their instruments-- in fact they just make shit up and assume it will work. "This lazer light supposedly attracts ghosts."

Real fucking scientific, guys.

>>1424988

A supernatural world could exist, but if it did we could never know. (I think what you're getting at/jumping to is "if it interacted with the natural world, it would no longer be supernatural.")

It's an exercise in philosophy to think of a way a supernatural world could both exist and effect the natural world, whilst remaining supernatural.

>>1424988

are skyscrapers natural?

>>1425062

I like the FSM. It was an excellent philosophical exercise demonstrating that if it sounds like bullshit and is unfalsifiable, it is probably false (and bullshit).

>>1425077

We should be careful about semantics, but yes. Sky scrapers are just as natural as bee hives.

>>1425078

I wouldn't say "probably", that requires you calculate probabilities. I think what you mean is "you can't ever show it to be false, so it doesn't make sense to believe it."

>>1425153

I will not pussy-foot around with agnosticism. I cannot demonstrate there are no fairies in my garden, but I am not going to confine myself to that. I am saying they are not real.

There are no fairies in my garden, and as badly as I want there to be an afterlife, there are no ghosts. There is also no bigfoot, which has the same evidence in favor of it (some testimonial evidence and shitty photographs).

>>1425062
We've accounted for every atom in the human body. When one dies, certain amounts of atoms do not dissipate. Therefore, if there is a spiritual world, it has nothing to do with our life forms and our world.

>supernatural world could exist

no

>>1425181

You're moving from "I don't have evidence for" to "I know that it's not true." That's a pretty big gap in reasoning.

Ghosts generate magnetic fields.
Ghosts are how magnets work.

>Does science allow for the possibility of ghosts?
Certainly. Currently we have ghost energy that rotates the galaxies faster than the normal matter can keep intact and that also accelerates or slows down random flyby satellites. This is direct proof of ghosts.

>>1425196

If it can be asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

Dancing around the inevitable is a waste of time.

>my face when I recognize Op's picture

Ghosts are actually aliens with cloaking devices sent to observe humans in their natural habitat.

>>1425330

Good point. It is just as scientific as ghosts are invisible dead people walking around but don't have an interest in brains.

tl;dr ghosts are nonsense.

What about Starcraft Ghosts?

>>1425281

Except "dismissed" is different than "assert it's not true".

OP IF A FAGGOT

>>1425534

The angsty atheists will never get that.

Don't worry about it bro.

Fuck yeah for agnostics though. The only real choice.

Science, to a certain degree, can explain the phenomena of 'ghosts'. There just hasn't been done enough research yet.

>>1425618
>thinks the majority of atheists aren't agnostic

What about ghosts beings 'shadows' of other dimensions? That's not too crazy.

Or left over energy. Engery has to go somewhere, right?

Sure, ok. Prove it.

>>1425618

> Implying atheist and agnostic are different views of the same concept.

Except they're not, they're orthogonal. I'm an agnostic atheist; you need both (a)theist an (a)gnosticism to fully describe someones religious beliefs.

You're probably atheist too. Don't believe in a God? Atheist.

You guys are forgetting about transdimensional beings. Which is totally science.

The question you should be asking yourself, OP, is if ghosts allow the possibility of science.

>>1428485

What about Pascal's Wager?

>>1428586

Pascal's Wager is flawed in so many points.

>>1428594

Do tell! Its an idea that I've been mulling over lately, but I try not to bring it up with friends (since everyone seems to think they have the answer and agnosticism is not an option).

>>1428623

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

>>1428627

Thanks :)

Science allows for the possibility of anything, giving the burden of proof to he who suggests. Any conjecture is valid, provided you can gather the empirical evidence.

>>1428664

np

>>1428623

- It assumes God cares about one of the two sentient species on one of the four worlds that could support life in the solar system, in this star our of 400 billion in the galaxy, and this galaxy out of over 600 billion
- It assumes God listens to prayer
- It assumes God has a special place for bad humans and mean humans
- It assumes God has the same moral codes presented in the Bible
- I think there was something else.
- I sincerely apologize for repeating "It assumes", it seemed more formal that way.

>>1425328
explain
i have seen this image on 4chan several times today and have no idea what it is about

No.

There is no evidence that supports the possibility of the existence of ghosts.

>>1428854
what he said
/thread

>>1428854

No evidence doesn't imply non-existence. It merely means you currently have no evidence.

>>1429021

the invisible and unsupported look awfully alike to the nonexistent.

well maybe maybe not but science at its most basic form could be used to prove that anything form ghosts to bloody unicorns exist. keep trying different things until you've collected enough data to make a conclusion. I personally stopped believing in ghosts but I must give credit to the more technology based "ghost hunters". they try things that they think could work based on what they KNOW and if it doesn't work try something else.

>>1429021
>>1429021
>>1429021
>>1429021

lol, in the context of
>does SCIENCE ALLOW for the possibility of ghosts

then you are absolutely wrong

>>1429040

But they aren't the same.

>>1431216

How so? You can't conclude something doesn't exist just because there is no evidence for it, all you can conclude is there is no evidence for it (and therefore no reason to believe it.)

Contrarily, if there was evidence that *contradicted* the claim, then we have evidence to indeed believe ghosts cannot exist (because they contradict some observation.)

Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence to the contrary.