Hitch is dead

No
I have never heard of an account of any of these occurrences you talk about where the object of the vision is physical in the sense that it can be touched and felt physically. I have never heard of a case where there were multiple sightings in different locations involving large numbers of people.
You claim that you know of a case(s) where people have talked to people physically in the room. Do you know of a case where people were able to actually touch and feel the deceased person in the room. If you can find somebody who claimed that, can you then find anyone to verify it. Can you then show where a whole movement formed around the occurrence and subsequent teachings of the sightings.
You will likely mention Joseph Smith but that whole movement started based on his word alone that he had received a divine message, without any, let alone numerous, others to verify it. He then wrote a book about it and lived a privileged life as a result.Firstly, I don’t accept that what you describe are physical events. However, I believe that in the majority of cases the happenings can be shown to be illusions performed by entertainers or fraudsters. There may be more to some of these occurrences, but I can’t go further than that. I had a friend that lost a 28 year old son and claimed to have had a conversation with him after his death. Was it psychosomatic? I don’t know. However, there isn’t anyone else who can verify her story. Well, we’ve been down this road before and the evidence that we are the result of mindlessness is strictly that we can investigate the processes that resulted in us being alive. However there is no scientific evidence that the processes themselves had a mindless origin. I contend that there is an abundance of philosophical evidence, but then I know that you discount that as evidence at all. When I asked for examples I meant specific examples. But how about specific cases. Did any of these cases happen to different groups at different times without there being any prior expectation that the occurrence could happen? I’m not talking about some charismatic leader getting people to follow him/her. This is a case of people completely adjusting their fundamental beliefs because of the event itself.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

You have it backwards. There is no scientific evidence that the processes themseves
had a mind as an origin.

I didn't say there was. I was responding to Stile's claim that there was scientific evidence for a mindless cause of our existence.

Why not? The claims of these physical events have as much support as the claims for your physical events.
The people who report them believe they are just as real as you believe your claims to be.
I think that your hesitation comes from social acceptance and popularity - which are both factors that have no relevance on if the event actually happened or not. I gave you books and lists chock full of specific examples.
If you want to pick a few, we can still do that:Here's a specific example of a girl claiming to have sex with ghosts.That seems a lot more physical than just come "seeing and basic touching."Does that mean this ghost is more likely to be real than the resurrection?Here's one experienced by many people - all with "similar stories that only differ on the details"
The Mackenzie Poltergeist
-many, many eye witnesses
-many getting "cuts, bruises and burns" from the poltergeist - again, more than just touching.Does this mean this poltergeist is more likely to be real than the resurrection?These are not uncommon.
Any library you go to will have entire sections devoted to people who believe in their experiences as much, or maybe even more, than you believe in the resurrection.
All with the same sort of "eye witness" evidence of "physical events" occurring. Some to single people, other to many, multiples of people.
Many have recorded evidence, even - this is even more evidence the resurrection has.They use exactly the same terminology you use to claim the resurrection is real.
-so many different people have witnessed it
-physical things have occurred that cannot be explained any other way
-no one is lying about it
-these people are all just searching for the truth and trying to let others know what they know
-there is no motivation for them to be trying to trick othersI don't see how you can claim the resurrection is "highly likely" but these stories are not.
Unless, of course, your measurement on "likelihood" is very much attached to your personal connection with the event - which is what I think is happening.
Unfortunately, such a "personal connection" is well understood to lead one away from reality, not towards it.

No, but the idea that in the beginning was chemicals is just plain silly.You can argue that until the cows come home, but it makes far less intrinsic sense than does the premise of a mind as the origin of all.

Yet that is exactly what ALL of the evidence shows.

But Phat, your mind is just chemicals too, it doesn't exist outside the physical realm. The idea of a mind existing before the universe or life existing doesn't make any sense at all. The progression of universe->life->mind makes more sense then: discombobulated-mind->universe->life->life-based-minds

quote:

---

No, but the idea that in the beginning was chemicals is just plain silly.

---

Indeed, quite a lot had to happen before chemicals could exist.But the idea that a mind was the origin of all is not particularly sensible. Indeed, the existence of such a mind cries out for explanation - and there is none.Edited by PaulK, : a correction and a clarification.

That's a silly thing to say. We know there ARE chemicals. Why on earth is it silly to think they were around in "the beginning"? It makes far MORE "intrinsic" sense to think in terms of what we DO know - e.g. chemicals - than what we DON'T know - e.g. some spooky "mind". Every mind that we DO know about is made of chemicals.You're welcome to believe whatever bullshit you like but don't try to pretend that it "makes more sense" than reality. That won't fly here.

Let's start here. I DO know God better than the atheists do. All they know is what was written about God. And they don't even know the authors who wrote about Him. I DO NOT claim to know the book better than the authors. And I'm not so vain and egotistical as to attempt to write my own book. As a believer, I am a work in progress. "OK, let's book Him, Inspector jar! Wait...whats that? We have no evidence? But surely this Flood had to have happened...after all, it's in the book!" You can't claim that God is limited to a character in the book and then turn around and charge the character with committing atrocities, claiming to prove the motive of that character.You waffle back and forth, don't you? You use something written in the book when it supports your argument, yet dismiss other things as apologetic fantasies.I suppose I do the same thing. Yet for me, belief in "The Flood" is unnecessary for my faith. Some things could be metaphorical. Either that or it all could be magical. Which is possible. Ringo, the only evidence you will ever ever have in your life will be the believers themselves. There are some genuine ones. They are the real deal and they walk in power and anointing.But you don't think that God is even necessary, do you? You have a lot still to learn in the remaining years of your life. Let's get back to the Book, shall we? We have no evidence that God Himself committed any crimes. That is, unless you strip Him of His right to judge people who were proven unworthy and incapable of learning to do better.But lets focus on the NT. I dont recall throwing any of it out. If it pleases the court, present any evidence that I have thrown so much as a page of the NT away from my apologetic pile of goodies. And this just after accusing me of being arrogant! Why should we trust your teaching skills? Anybody can read word for word what a book says. It takes a good teacher to suggest a deeper meaning.You just don't happen to agree with any of the teachers. John 3:16 for starters. Honestly, though, I am humbled.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

So why do we have believers? Why would a rational guy such as yourself believe that God exists when there is not any evidence? Do you limit God to a character of the human mind and imagination?

I really dont care about whether a God exists or not. The recent developments that may shelve the Big Bang Theory are far more important to me.

double postEdited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

Firstly the article is even titled sex with a ghost. That hardly sounds physical. In addition it is an experience of one individual at a time. There is no one to confirm the occurrence and no one has considered changing their world view because of it. Firstly here is a more balanced article that even provides possible scientific explanations.
Mackenzie Poltergeist
Again you are using the term "poltergeist". Thst is synonymous with ghost. It is not physical.This is a tourist site with people prospering from it. It is goulish from the point of view that they are profiting from the incredible sufferings of people who died at the hands of a psychopath.People that go there have a foreboding sense of occurrences to start with, and are
prone to believing that something could happen. In the case of the resurrection we know from historic records of first century Judaism that the resurrection was not what anyone thought would happen, (which is consistent with the Gospel accounts), and were surprised by it.The occurrences happened in multiple places to multiple people. It changed the world view of thousands in short order and was attested to by numerous people even decades later. The stories you quoted are not in the same category as the resurrection accounts, for the reasons I have outlined. I agree that resurrection is far removed from our life experiences. We know now, as they did then, that except in cases of resuscitation people who are dead remain dead.However if we hold the theistic belief that life is the result of intelligence, then the resurrection accounts are open to consideration. If of course, we hold a materialistic or atheistic belief then the resurrection is impossible and there has to be another explanation.

That's all that is possible to know. Your claims of "communion" are arrogant and empty. Yes you do. The authors did not claim that their writing was part of one cohesive whole. You do. Why not? How is it inconsistent to point out that the ONLY information we have about Him includes information that He committed atrocities? The Book says that God created the heavens and the earth and it says He committed the Flood atrocity. There's no waffling about that. It's the apologists who try to waffle Him into a wholly good God despite the atrocities. The evidence shows that He is not. This is not about a fictional God committing fictional crimes. It's about where your beliefs come from. You don't accept the Bible accounts and you don't accept reality. Your beliefs are entirely man-made. You reject what Jesus told the rich man about what he must do to be saved. You reject the story about the Roman church doing it. I have never even suggested that you should trust what I say. I have told you repeatedly to read what it SAYS. Then do it. Or a liar. Why are you afraid to discuss the apologists' lies? If "God so loved the world", why did He destroy it with the Flood?