The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
noobdebatr123 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 116815
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Do ghosts really exist? Is the term ghosts the correct term? We tend to bring in the supernatural when we have no other explanation. (Meaning we don't know.)
My wife and I experienced a 'ghost' both at the same time, which proves to me that they do indeed exist, but what are they really? Could there be a scientific reason for their existence? When it comes to the supernatural, I tend to try for a natural explanation. My research over 50yrs has led me to a different understanding and now I am more excited than I have ever been. Each day brings another challenge.
My argument is; ghosts exist, but for reasons that have more to do with evolution than the supernatural.


No, they don't exist. I think they don't because a spooky old ghost wont go around being a poltergeist, and they aren't simply, aren't real. My mother claims she has seen a ghost, but, maybe this could be a figment of your imagination, an illusion. Maybe after a loved one dies, you are very sad, so maybe your brain conjures up something to comfort you? Who knows, maybe ghosts are an illusion, maybe they are real, maybe they are just flying curtains. Maybe life is an illusion?!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for taking up my challenge. I understand your doubt; if you have never experienced this phenomenon, how can you be expected to believe it? I will try to gain your confidence by starting off with the demise of the supernatural.
I think that at the present time it says in the Scientific Journal that seeing accurately is beneficial to species here on earth.
Dr Donald Hoffman, cognitive scientist based at the University of California discovered while researching Australia's jewel beetle, that life cannot see accurately. This means all life, micro macro and quantum. He went on to say, that not seeing accurately was beneficial and not the other way around.
I'll explain; imagine two worlds and to simplify lets call them two jigsaws. On No 1 jigsaw is a species that can see accurately. It completes the jigsaw in no time at all leaving it nowhere to go except onwards to extinction - it would have no purpose. On jigsaw No2 lives a species that cannot see accurately (us), it struggles and its struggle feeds its intelligence, which is passed down to the individuals of that species, giving them purpose.
This brings another big problem; if all the species on world No2 cannot see accurately and not seeing accurately feeds intelligence; then why hasn't all life evolved to the same level?
When we try to sort out the mystery behind the balance in nature, in comes the supernatural to explain things, but the supernatural would put us back on world No1 with no purpose. We have to dismiss the supernatural and choose the only other way that the balance could happen - life is connected. Life began as one and must still be evolving as one; there is no other choice. When you have eliminated the impossible, (supernatural) whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Another way to demonstrate this is to research Dreams of the Future. Maths is the language of the universe. The patterns that the universe is showing us are defined by the patterns it displays. (The speed of light, the makeup of planets,
and the distance of far away star systems etc.) It is patterns that we look for when researching dreams of the future.
Before we dismiss these dreams, think back. Abraham Lincoln had one, so did Mark Twain, and who could doubt the one experienced by Helen Duncan?
In 1944 during World War11, Helen dreamed of a ship that had sunk. She was very popular and moved in the corridors of power and when she was observed telling about this ship, she was arrested and charged with witchcraft. This was because the ship had really gone down and the Admiralty wanted the Germans to carry on looking for it. By charging Helen of witchcraft they were hoping her story would not be believed. Helen's dream happened as the event ' the sinking 'happened. Lincolns dream happened three days after being dreamt. The latter appears to be a dream that foretells the future, but is it? What is the pattern here?
Think of our conscious world and look for the pattern there. the subconscious and the conscious come from the same source and therefore must have to follow the same rules.
If you put Helen's dream on an emotional level of 10 out of a scale of 1 to 10 it's very high. Lincoln's would be a level of 4, pretty low.
You can compare this pattern to one we would experience in the conscious world, If we planned an atrocity to happen in the future, we would experience a level of4. If we were in the act of committing the atrocity, we would have an emotional level of 10. The only difference between the two is; you cannot see or measure ability in the subconscious, but the pattern tells us that ability in the subconscious is there. This means that ghosts come from the living and not from the dead!
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by stevenedwards 3 years ago
Well, I personally believe that ghosts don"t exist. However, I do understand why some people believe in them. There are numerous reasons why people "see" ghosts or visions, More specifically. Some individuals see things that aren"t actually there because of mental disorders, Others see them because of optical illusion. But there isn"t scientific proof that ghosts actually exist. We can only assume that these creatures are merely a creation of the mind. Before I start explaining why I don"t believe in ghosts, Let me define the term ghost. A ghost is an apparition of a dead person that is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, Typically as a nebulous image.
As an atheist, I believe the afterlife, If there was one, Is too complex for the human brain to understand.
The concept of ghosts can easily be contradicted, Due to the fact that there is no way something that isn"t physical, That doesn"t actually have a physical body can see, Think or feel. It"s also very confusing that ghosts are both invisible and not invisible. Either way, They"re considered to have the ability to go through physical things, Which is foolish to believe. Why? Because the human body consists of physical elements that have a mass. Since ghost supposedly DON"T have a mass, They can"t consist of the same things we do. Therefore, They couldn"t physically look like us. Did I mention they can"t think either? They don"t have a physical brain (the only type of brain in existence), So they can"t think, They can"t see, They can"t exist.
Maybe people actually see the dead, But that"s all in their minds. Ghosts aren"t real, And believing in them is naive.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.