Interesting Craigslist find.

[Justin Z]

There is a ton of circumstantial/anecdotal evidence to support the existence of "ghosts", while essentially no adult that is not mentally-handicapped is even suggesting that  "Santa Claus,  The Easter Bunny,  and The Tooth Fairy" are real


That, incidentally, is why I prefer comparisons to things like unicorns and leprechauns, things that were once believed to exist, but which fell out of favor.

Ghosts haven't.  For whatever reason, the possibility of their existence seems more compatible with a "modern" mode of credulous thought.

[ahofle]

You don't quite have the hang of that, do you? BTW, what happened to your plan of not replying to any of my posts ever again?

You don't get to redefine my plan.  You clearly don't understand my plan.

[MaximRecoil]

"God", or, a "first mover" has to exist, or has to have once existed at least. Logic demands it. If there was ever nothing, there would still be nothing; by default. So "God" doesn't exactly fit into your list. "Ghosts" don't fit into your list either, simply by virtue of millions of sincere adult witnesses.

Why?

Is it necessary that for there ever to have been something, that something else must have "created" it?

If so, you are forced to explain the existence of something infinitely more complex than the universe.  To use something more complex than the universe, like a "first" mover, to explain the existence and complexity of the universe has put you at an even more difficult place than when you started: Explaining what caused the "first" mover.  So I suggest you rethink your position.

I don't need to "rethink" the position. It has already been stated far more eloquently than I could ever do it; hundreds of years ago. You don't need to explain what "caused" the "first mover" BTW; because if anything "caused" the "first mover" then the "first mover" would not be the "first mover", by definition; now would it?

[RayB]

Are unicorns, leprechauns and cerberus likely to exist simply because it "would be pretty crazy" if they did?

According to Silvia Brown, there are. And the legions of suckers who buy her books and watch Montel just take her word for it.  Kind of like most religions. If its in the book, it must be true?

Why degrade this into a God debate? We're talking about the UNDEAD floating around and yet also being able to interact with physical world. OooOOOo scarrrry.

It's human nature to want to believe in fantastic things. I grew up reading everything about UFOs, ghosts, psychics, big foot, etc. In adulthood I came to understand that psychologically, it was just wishful thinking. It's human to wish there is more than the mundance reality we percieve. But that's the key there. Just because we wish for something more exciting to be real, doesn't make it real. We have to accept that maybe what's out there on this planet is what we make of it ourselves. Creator god or not.

[Justin Z]

I don't need to "rethink" the position. It has already been stated far more eloquently than I could ever do it; hundreds of years ago. You don't need to explain what "caused" the "first mover" BTW; because if anything "caused" the first mover than the "first mover" would not be the "first mover", by definition; now would it?

Yup.  This is why only "first" gets put in quotes when I refer to a "first" mover.  All you're doing by positing a "first" mover is shifting the goalposts back.  You still need one more kick to get through, but just as you approach the ball, by the very nature of your argument you've backed them up another 50 yards.

By definition, a first mover is more complex than whatever it is he moved.  So if you're going to use such a device to explain our existence, you've created yourself quite a problem: You now have to explain where in the world something even MORE complex came from in the first place.  As I mentioned before, you have an infinite regress of "first" movers on your hands.

Edited to add: Aquinas was quite the thinker . . . in his day.  We've come a long way since hundreds of years ago.

[ChadTower]

Justin's concept, of course, assumes that complex life began on Earth.  We could easily be Populated Planet version 1908657th. 

Personally, I figure it was all just a random sequence of events.  With enough time, and enough events, eventually something is going to click together in a meaningful way.  Probability demands it.

[MaximRecoil]

I don't need to "rethink" the position. It has already been stated far more eloquently than I could ever do it; hundreds of years ago. You don't need to explain what "caused" the "first mover" BTW; because if anything "caused" the first mover than the "first mover" would not be the "first mover", by definition; now would it?

Yup.  This is why only "first" gets put in quotes when I refer to a "first" mover.  All you're doing by positing a "first" mover is shifting the goalposts back.  You still need one more kick to get through, but just as you approach the ball, by the very nature of your argument you've backed them up another 50 yards.

By definition, a first mover is more complex than whatever it is he moved.  So if you're going to use such a device to explain our existence, you've created yourself quite a problem: You now have to explain where in the world something even MORE complex came from in the first place.  As I mentioned before, you have an infinite regress of "first" movers on your hands.

You don't have to explain where the "first mover" came from, you only need show logically that there must have been one. It is not even reasonable to suggest that the "first mover" need be explained, due to the fact that anything predating the universe would not necessarily be subject to the same rules as are present in the observable universe. It would be like ants in an ant farm assuming that humans can only walk so far before they hit a glass barrier.

[whammoed]

Justin's concept, of course, assumes that complex life began on Earth.  We could easily be Populated Planet version 1908657th. 

Personally, I figure it was all just a random sequence of events.  With enough time, and enough events, eventually something is going to click together in a meaningful way.  Probability demands it.

You would enjoy reading "The Blind Watchmaker".  Check it out if you haven't already.

[RayB]

PS: Something to think about, but why would a "conciousness" (ie:ghost) be subject to physical world laws like "scale" ? Why aren't appearances of so-called ghosts ever small and tiny, or big like a house? If a ghost can knock a couple glasses around, why aren't they also assuming large size and knocking boats or cars around?

People keep arguing that "there's got to be more than just the physical world we perceive" to explain the possibility of ghosts, yet for some reason then, these spirit things are then bound to some physical world laws and then not others. Let's see, they can bend light to make use see them, but they can't assume a different SIZE. Sorry, but that kills the concept right there in my point of view.

[ChadTower]

You would enjoy reading "The Blind Watchmaker".  Check it out if you haven't already.

Found a reference to the book... nothing on video other than a documentary from the 80s.  I'll keep an eye out for the book, looks interesting.  Thanks!

[Justin Z]

I accept your argument only on the basis that the first mover did not need to be a conscious being.

I call this first mover "Big Bang."  It's the best way I feel we can explain it with our current level of knowledge.

And yes, it's fun to imagine larger things than ourselves, a la the ants.  But you are talking about things we know to exist, and even the ants can perceive we humans, so to use your analogy in the way you did doesn't really make sense.

[ChadTower]

I call this first mover "Big Bang."  It's the best way I feel we can explain it with our current level of knowledge.

Actually, I have a picture.

[MaximRecoil]

I accept your argument only on the basis that the first mover did not need to be a conscious being.

Well if you can imagine something that moved entirely of its own volition, as well as something whose movement resulted in an orderly universe, as being something other than an intelligent being; then that's fine—inexplicable, but fine.

[Justin Z]

It's not inexplicable at all.

If there's no need for God to have been "created" by something else, there's no need for the universe to have been "created" by something else.  It's really quite simple.

[MaximRecoil]

It's not inexplicable at all.

If there's no need for God to have been "created" by something else, there's no need for the universe to have been "created" by something else.  It's really quite simple.

Except that God, by definition, exists outside of the universe. A creator is obviously separate from, and predates, the creation. You can only ever blindly speculate about the nature of God because you don't even know of one single rule governing his existence. On the other hand, we know plenty of rules which govern the universe.

Whether or not something created the "God" of this universe is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the logical existence of a "first mover" relative to our observable universe. Where the "first mover" came from doesn't matter because that predates our universe and would fall into a category for which we have no common frame of reference, or even a single fact about.

[Justin Z]

You have made two unsupported assertions in your first paragraph.  Without supporting them, your argument can't stand.

They are:

- God exists outside the universe.
- A creator is obviously separate from, and predates, the creation.

Oddly enough, you immediately admit these premises are unsupported: "You can only blindly speculate about the nature of God because You don't know . . .  one single rule governing his existence."

But even stranger, you then go on to use these unsupported premises to support the "logic" of your argument, concluding that "the only thing that is relevant is the logical existence of a 'first mover' relative to our observable universe."

You have been harping on logic for the entirety of this discussion, but I'm not seeing it in your line of reasoning.  That said, I could be missing something.  If so, what is it?

[MaximRecoil]

You have made two unsupported assertions in your first paragraph.  Without supporting them, your argument can't stand.

They are:

- God exists outside the universe.
- A creator is obviously separate from, and predates, the creation.

Nope, that's by definition, like I said. A creator is by definition separate from, and predates, the creation.

Oddly enough, you immediately admit these premises are unsupported: "You can only blindly speculate about the nature of God because You don't know . . .  one single rule governing his existence."

That fact that words like "creator" and "creation" mean things, specific things, has nothing to do with the nature of God's existence. In order to create something, the creator must first exist. In order to qualify as a creation, it must be something other than what already exists. So as you can see, and as I said earlier, "A creator is by definition separate from, and predates, the creation."

[Justin Z]

Your stating something as fact does not make it fact.

Your definitions are fine, if you have support for them.  Do you?  If not, I will continue not to accept your definitions.

Incidentally, there are other problems with your definitions, including the implication that something that exists outside the universe can interact with things within it, and that something can exist outside the universe at all.

[JMB]

Wow.  This thread is going to end up in PnR and I don't even have access. 

[TelcoLou]

Wow.  This thread is going to end up in PnR and I don't even have access. 

Lucky you 

[Ginsu Victim]

I was just about to say, "Move this to PnR"
This topic took a left turn somewhere near Albuquerque...

Argue about this elsewhere.

[MaximRecoil]

Your stating something as fact does not make it fact.

Your definitions are fine, if you have support for them.  Do you?  If not, I will continue not to accept your definitions.

Is that a joke? Are you saying that you don't understand what the words "creator" and "creation" means? Do you not realize that it is self-evident that a creator predates and is separate from said creator's creation?

Incidentally, there are other problems with your definitions, including the implication that something that exists outside the universe can interact with things within it, and that something can exist outside the universe at all.

If it is agreed that there exists or existed a first mover which resulted in the observable universe (logically there must have been), then it follows that "something that exists outside the universe can interact with things within it, and that something can exist outside the universe at all"; because, a "first mover" by definition would have been outside of the universe which resulted from it. If the "first mover" was part of the universe, then it wouldn't have been the "first mover", because the "first mover" is what caused the universe to exist in the first place; and thus, couldn't have already been a part of it.

[FrizzleFried]

fairy tales that are known to have been intentionally made-up.

Are you trying to suggest that there hasn't been fairy tales and other stories INTENTIONALLY MADE-UP regarding ghosts?  You don't see the parity?  Are ghost stories and different than stories of Rudolph or Frosty?

[Justin Z]

Max, based on your most recent reply, we are clearly talking at cross purposes (I suspected as much).  Given that, and since others are complaining about our discussion, I don't mind ending it here.

Thanks for the brain exercise today.

[SavannahLion]

42

Duh.

As for ghosts, First Mover, and so on. So what if they're real or not? It's one of those circular arguments where you have one side debating they don't exist and the other side presenting that they do. If the existance of ghosts is disproved or proved, I'll modify my methodology and move on. Meanwhile, I'll be more than happy to enjoy the movies.

[MaximRecoil]

fairy tales that are known to have been intentionally made-up.

Are you trying to suggest that there hasn't been fairy tales and other stories INTENTIONALLY MADE-UP regarding ghosts?  You don't see the parity?  Are ghost stories and different than stories of Rudolph or Frosty?

Some have, just like there has been intentional fiction created about pretty much every subject. But there are a lot of people who sincerely believe they have witnessed a "ghost". Some of them are people I know. Who beyond a child or mentally handicapped person sincerely believes they have witnessed Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny? Those are known products of intentional fiction.

[barrel_hopper]

There is overwhelming evidence for the majority of the things you just listed

Which things and where is the overwhelming evidence?

I think he means us living on a big rock in space, orbiting around a sun which is made out of burning gas, etc.

Yeah, exactly, sorry I wasn't clear on that.

To sum up: Lots of evidence for us living on a near-spherical planet in empty space that orbits around a large, 20 million degree, near-sphere of hydrogen and helium; ghosts, not so much, despite the "craziness" of both ideas.

Yea I was not trying to argue that ghosts are real... I was just trying to make the point that some of the things that are normal are quite weird.

[Cimran86]

HELLO!

I'm a producer on SyFy's Paranormal Witness. I am looking to find out more about the Haunted Ms Pac-Man Cabinet to potentially feature in one of our shows. Who would be the best person to talk to about this?

Thanks,
Cimran

[nordemoniac]

LOL 

[ChadTower]

WOW.  Talk about bringing a derailed thread back from the dead.

GHOST THREAD.

Wait... does this mean BYOAC is haunted?


Just in case Cimran86 is serious... and since I may be one of the only folks originally from this thread still standing...

I never heard of anyone actually getting this game nor did I ever see any evidence that it was anything more than a joke post on Craigslist. 

[lilshawn]

ZOMBIE THREAD WANTS BRAAAAIIIIIINNNSS!

ZOMBIE THREAD DISAPPOINT!

ZOMBIE THREAD HUNGRY 


Yes, especially every year around april fools a butt load of "free" arcade machine posts pop up on cragislist, ebay, etc. with varying stories. Surely you jest on the day of fools?!



Don't worry, i'll get this thread pushed into Pn'R...hold on kids, this is going to be a bumpy ride...

god's existence is proved only by what is written in a book.

therefore, spiderman exists because there is a book about him.
therefore, harry potter exists because there is a book about him.
therefore, the world of alice in wonderland exists because there is a book about that.

How stupid do I sound now??

[WindDrake]

Holy necropost, Batman. I remember this thread. Never contributed, though. Yikes.

[Rick]

Just in case Cimran86 is serious... and since I may be one of the only folks originally from this thread still standing... I never heard of anyone actually getting this game nor did I ever see any evidence that it was anything more than a joke post on Craigslist.

I believe he is serious, as he's provided his professional credentials in his own thread. There's a huge market in the supernatural, and has been for a long time, so I'm not surprised he'd be exhausting all of the options in investigating what could be a sensational story.

[yotsuya]

I suppose research for stuff like this involves Googling "Haunted Arcade Cabinets" and looking for what comes up? 

[Rick]

I suppose research for stuff like this involves Googling "Haunted Arcade Cabinets" and looking for what comes up? 

*Googles "Ghosts in Pac-Man"...*

...

*Hides under bed.*

[jennifer]

    Ive been out on a call similar to this... One, aparently the owner felt "watched" as she played, after a lot of thought, I came up with the only explanation I could think of, Witch is,  radiation,... the manual warns againt it for the serviceman, So if someone was to play for long stretches of time they would be exposed to Xrays, creating mind tricks. this may account for the "haunting".

[HaRuMaN]

    Ive been out on a call similar to this... One, aparently the owner felt "watched" as she played, after a lot of thought, I came up with the only explanation I could think of, Witch is,  radiation,... the manual warns againt it for the serviceman, So if someone was to play for long stretches of time they would be exposed to Xrays, creating mind tricks. this may account for the "haunting".

 

[jdbailey1206]

I often become possessed when I attach myself to a case of beer.  After a few hours with said beer I begin to speak in tounges and vomit uncontrollably.  I also have been told that when I fall asleep I snore and I sound like a demon.

[Rick]

I've been out on a call similar to this... One, aparently the owner felt "watched" as she played, after a lot of thought, I came up with the only explanation I could think of, which is...

FTFY

[jennifer]

   Scoff all you guys want, Ive never seen the ghost myself, but for someone who has its quite real... I would also wonder if a fauly monitor couldnt actually boost radiation levels.