Ghosts are Proof of God

Something other than a creaky house or fuzzy photographs?

Your argument is failing because you very premise is in unsubstantiated.

Says who? How do you know a ghost is a consciousnesses?

How about you draw a line between the two as you have been oh so very nicely asked to demonstrate?

 

I have had the same sort of thing happen to me, however I remain unconvinced.

 

I think you have to prove ghosts exist before you can use ghosts to prove God.

 

People have believed in ghosts, spirits, demons,, even dragons for thousands of years. An afterlife, the "soul" etc have also been around for thousands of years.

Athiests like Buddhists and animists (who are technically athiests) also believe in ghosts, spirits, souls and an afterlife. Whether they actually exist is highly debatable.

Therefore there is no proof of any connection with any kind of god.

 

Buddhists also believe in lesser and greater Gods.

 

Its the last part that we disagree about. The contention is that ghosts represent proof of an afterlife, that there is something beyond the simple chemical and biolgical make up of our bodies - which we term souls, and Buddhists think form the basis of reincarnation.

Now, what is this substance, and if you are Christian and believe in God and the messages of his prophets - then this is clear indication of the spiritual realm.

Again, definitive proof? No.

Strongly suggestive? Yes.

BTW - Budhhists also believe in greater and lesser Gods, a whole host ideas based in the spiritual. It is atheists, not Buddhists, who deny the soul. There is no technically about it, if Buddhism was atheism they would call it atheism. There is a hell of a lot more to Buddhism than JUST the belief in God or Gods, and indeed fundamental contradictions even with that statement.

 

Maybe I should have been more specific,, Theravada Buddhism.

Theravadins don't believe in any gods.

Athiests like animists also believe in an afterlife, a soul and ghosts and spirits.

 

No, but they still believe in something beyond the physical body that survives and is continuously reincarnated.

Why do atheists have a problem with the Christian concept of a soul but not reincarnation? Makes no logical sense does it?

 

I don't believe in reincarnation.

 

So, there is a differnce, more than a technicality between Buddhists and atheists. Glad we got that settled.

Now we can move onto the fact that ghosts are strongly suggestive of souls.

 

Yes, and I hope you follow your own advice there.

Never heard of animal ghosts? Folklore is full of them.
Animals do not have souls, according to God believers, so how does this compute?

Or do only ghosts "exist" which fit your claims?

 

Folklore - not Christian - and it is not documented is it? Hauntings and other events almost always involve humans or ... demonic aspects. All of this is suggestive of exactly what we claim is it not?

 

Yes, it does make logical sense.

Buddhists believe in the concept of karma and reincarnation as a chain of cause and effect, Christians believe in a one-shot life by the grace of a stipulated god, after which the eternal soul is being judged by him.

See the difference?

 

All the traditional beliefs and transmitted folklore account for nothing, are to be dismissed because they do not fit your claims?
Prove that no animal ghosts exist.

Oh, so ghosts can be "demonic aspects" as well, there aren't by necessity human then, as Yosh falsely claimed?

 

No, they are to be dismissed because the current documentation of ghosts does not include them.

The ghost stories, etc. that are documented all have histories, etc. that back up the appearenec of apparitions, and those outside these confines appear to indicate demonic influence.

Both ghosts and demons are claimed in the Bible are they not?

A ghost and a demon are two very different things. Humans are not the only higher creatures that God created, indeed, your favorite being Satan and his minions.

This selective expertise on our faith is quite ... well, not honorable.

What we are not doing, once again, is dicsussing what alternate theories atheists have for the increasing documentation of spiritual aspects in this world - one they deny.

 

What? Do you wonder what would constitute evidence of ghosts and yet allow yourself to assert that ghosts are proof of something?

 

^^
So now, "apparitions" are all either human or "demonic aspects"?

Me thinks you have your definitions confused...

Astonishing, isn't it, that even if one doesn't challenge the basic premises put forth by religious dogmatism - in this thread that ghosts "exist" - the adherents still cannot start to make a convincing case or argument in favour of their position without delving into muddled confusion.

lols

 

This is the danger of bringing gods out of the confinement of faith and trying to discuss them in a wider context. People who try this usually end up with unwitting attempts of assasinating their gods rather than defending the doctrines of their faiths.

 

Why ask me, I am not the self-professed bible expert here.
Perhaps you'd like to point to the bible passages where ghosts "are claimed", for those who haven't come across them?

 

That is the definition of a ghost yes. The question is if the various observations and experiences attributed to ghosts - everything from a room "feeling a bit cold", unexplained movement of objects, mysterious lights (on the ground - in the sky they're obviously aliens) though to observations of translucent figures - are actually definitively explained in that way.

I've not denied anything. I said you haven't demonstrated the proof that "life being transcendent" can only be explained by the existence of a specific god.

That presumes there is such a thing as a soul in the first place. Even if there is something conceptually separate from our physical body that somehow defines out consciousness, why couldn't that be terminated at the point we die?

No fear here. I long ago came to the conclusion that we can never know either way so there is no point in worrying about it.

Atheism isn't a belief system. Atheism describes a single feature of an individual - that they do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Any extension of that is beyond the scope of atheism. Also, the reasoning behind that single belief can be literally anything, rational or irrational. There is no reason proof of life after death would automatically dismiss it - it would just raise a whole new set of questions for us all, atheists and theists alike.

 

Because you missed all the talk about soul?

But then, you can't even find God in the Bible - so ... perhaps you should actually read it before soundly rejecting it? How can you logically disagree with something when you have no idea what it says?

 

Now back it up with something that looks like logic please.

Your thesis: Christian undermine their own faith ... because ...

Some atheists appear to be jerks about God?

Oh, something is definetly undermined there, but it isnt faith.

 

No. I haven't missed anything.

So, I take it that you are not prepared to back up your claim about ghosts by referencing specific passages in the bible?
- a simple yes or no will do.

It's not that I cannot "find God in the Bible" (I didn't bite on this Red Herring), it's rather that YOU have refused to substantiate your claim of a definition of your god by pointing at quotes from the bible - but do you really want to continue this as an offtopic diversion from another thread here?

 

The gods of Buddhism are simply very powerful spirits. They would fit into a Christian's definition of God, unless you consider angels and demons to be gods.

 

Buddhists also regard these "gods" as beings with a lifespan, as temporary illusions.
Nothing like the understanding of the Xtian God.