Are Ghosts Real? or Do They Exist? (Part 4)

Earlier we discussed different things about ghosts, trying to come a little closer to the truth about whether or not they exist, but also whether or not it's even possible for them to exist. We talked about what happens when you die and also what ghosts are/could be made of in previous posts. Now I want to talk about whether or not a ghost would have some sort of purpose to exist if one did. To be perfectly honest, I can't find too much information on what people believe that is other than just a couple of things, but I'll address those couple of things. Most people to my knowledge believe ghosts exist or are "created" because when someone died, they had unfinished business on the Earth that needed to take care of. This poses so many questions, I don't know if I can ask them all in just one post.

First of all, how many ghosts have solidly communicated to the living that they had some kind of "unfinished business"? With as many people that have died on the Earth (some scientists believe many more people than that of those who live on this Earth now have already died, which I've seen are estimates close to over 110 billion people; and that number grows daily.) you would think The earth would be flooded with messages and hauntings all across the globe with about 16 dead people's ghosts for each man woman and child on Earth (Right now there are almost 6.8 billion people alive today). Think about that for a minute. If there are a million people that claim to have one ghost in their house, that's 15 million extra ghosts to spread around the entire world population. For every one person that gives claim to only one ghost, 15 of them are somewhere else. Now imagine that 100 million people saw one ghost. That's 1.5 billion ghosts that they missed somehow. When will it be enough ghosts to convey a good solid, observable message that can be repeated at least one time? A little bit of research shows there are only about 5,000 Ku Klux Klan members and I'm pretty sure we got the message loud and clear. You can multiply that number by 22 billion and we still don't know anything about ghosts or their purpose. Why is that? Are they not able to speak? You can find many claims just on the internet about people who have claimed to have had lengthy conversations with a ghost. I've talked to some of these people myself. Mediums claim they chat with the deceased on a regular basis, or at least can. As a matter of fact, their chat window opens up on a cash by case basis. People pay for readings and séances every day and not one ghost came through with scientific information about what happened to them when they died or why? It doesn't even have to be scientific; they can just say, "Oh yeah, this is what happened. This is what it felt like, this is what it looked like, and I have this on my mind all the time, so I guess it's my goal or purpose." That would be a start at least. Of those 110 billion people already long dead, how many of them do you suppose were scientists, philosophers, teachers, great thinkers, religious, or a combination of just these few examples. Are we so quick to believe there is something out there that supposedly communicates daily and is more abundant than the world population 16 times over, yet we have no information about how or why they exist? He-Man is the champion and protector of Eternia. He has a more explainable purpose than ghosts as it stands.

As far as unfinished business goes, I suppose it's safe to assume that each person's business varies in detail and complexity. When you watch a movie about a ghost with unfinished business, it's always something that takes an epic adventure or at least a lot of toil and struggle to get this business done. It's pretty obvious that real life is nowhere as glamorous as the movies, but what are some examples of business that wasn't finished before someone died and can linger for a time afterwords. One thing that comes to mind is someone not setting their affairs in order like their will, estate, inheritances, control of businesses, etc... All of these things are eventually settled between the living; whether or not it takes weeks, months, or longer, in the end, the business gets finished; so we can throw that out unless certain ghosts hang out until those things are done; but that poses even more questions. First of all, why would they care? Secondly, How can wondering who's going to get your Microsoft stock next week trigger a supernatural response and transformation within your own body so grand and bizarre, science can't find one bit of proof of its occurrence? Could it be that a random old lady that owns a yarn store will one day be too slick for science to test because she changed her mind before she died and wants to give ownership to her second child? Can something so insignificant to someone else (for example, wanting my Batman comics to go to a specific grandchild that hasn't been born yet, but I forgot to update my will before death) just make someone conscious again to roam the Earth unchecked by God or whomever until the lawyers finish their paperwork? Wouldn't that give lawyers some degree of necromancy, to control the dead in so many words?

I've seen just a few times when looking some things up to post this, there are those who claim that a person can come back as a ghost because they need revenge exacted upon whoever killed them or caused their death somehow. I suppose if there is such a formula to create a ghost, this would be the most reasonable. Here you have purpose; a perfect basis for a movie plot. The funny thing is, there are tons of people in death row for murder in America alone. Here is a link that shows the populations of inmates on death row by year since 1968. Not one of those people were killed by a ghost; so either ghosts don't know how to do it right, or they just forgot after they died, negating their entire purpose to even be a ghost. Let's say it was like a movie plot and the living had to carry out the revenge in honor of said ghost. There have also been no reports to my knowledge of anyone breaking into a prison to kill someone on death row, so even if the message was sent, real people don't finish the business. Besides, the murderers are on death row. There's a good chance you could sit at home and watch tv and the business will get done anyway.

Now here's where it gets so complicated it creates a paradox. Let's say that a long time ago, someone was murdered in cold blood, came back as a ghost with the intent to exact his revenge by murdering that person. There's your unfinished business. Since no ghosts have ever really murdered anyone (or since there's no proof of it), we have to assume that said revenge was taken by living people. The murderer is finally murdered and the ghost/person/people got their revenge. Now the original murderer has a purpose of revenge because he was murdered by a conspiracy of people and ghosts (which would also create a loophole that would allow this ghost to exist forever, being that no one knows how to kill a ghost; but even if you could, how do you kill the dead?) So, this ghost gets revenge through other living people and murders those original revenge exacting killers, which would in turn give them reason or purpose to come back as a ghost and then kill those people, but would now have to use fresh people because if done right, all killers die in the next killing spree. In this scenario, you can keep multiplying until every last person in the world is murdered because one ghost couldn't let it go.

What about accidental death and the ghost just wanted to find out what killed him/her? What if one became a ghost for the sole purpose of discovering they slipped on a banana peel? Would they now have reason to take revenge on the guy who ate the banana? Would something so obscure and diluted, with an infinite number of possible scenarios all be the formula for creating ghosts with a purpose? Does that make sense? There might be more than one way to skin a cat, but an infinite amount of ways? Could I make a cake with as little as a million different formulas? How about the manner in which I tie my shoes? If you could get something done any which way you could imagine, instruction booklets would never have been invented. You could say, "Just do something, it'll happen." for everything.

With everything that's been said, I feel like there's so much that hasn't been said. Every question brings to light a new question. This should be the purpose of those who believe in ghosts and those who are skeptical or curious alike. Question everything; every aspect of what would be involved if something like ghosts exist. Don't just believe things, have proof on why. Science has nothing to experiment since actually finding a ghost is like snipe hunting, so it's imperative to take what we know about the world and use it to form new questions in the hopes of getting a little closer to the truth. Stay tuned for my next installment on whether or not ghosts exist. There's so much we haven't talked about, so be sure there is more to come.

Are Ghosts Real? or Do They Exist? (Part 3)

Previously, we discussed what happens when you die (here and here). Are you actually dead, or are you about to exist completely alone in someone's pantry, moving the green beans around forever? Now I'd like to discuss what ghosts are made of? Everything in the universe is made of something, right? Even atoms consist of a nucleus which consists of protons and neutrons, which again consist of quarks. I don't know all the details, but you get my point. Even the air around us is made of molecules and particles. Although these things we can't see with our eyes, scientific research has established solid theories and laws which are now known as fact.

We know of four different kinds of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Your kids should be learning this in science class at a fairly young age. One type can become another, but these are the general forms all matter comes in. Ice is a solid, melts to become a liquid, and evaporates with enough heat to become a gas... you get the picture. A child can understand this explanation better than most adults it seems. So, if the existence of ghosts are indeed a fact, they have to consist of matter... They have to be made of something.

Apparently, even with technology advancing so rapidly in this age, it's still impossible for science to be able to tell what these ghosts are made of. Why is that? In chemistry, compounds can be broken down in to their most basic elements. With these elements found on the periodic table, we can determine what things in the natural world are made of. Why would a ghosts be any different? Some would argue that ghosts are "supernatural", which would completely rule out anything natural... of course. Let's take a look at the definition for supernatural according to Merriam-Webster:

1

: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2

a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Was this definition created to appease those that just decided to believe something, or is there really something to this? By this definition, purple unicorns and pancake monsters are supernatural. Basically, I can make up anything I want that has no evidence to support its existence and call it supernatural. Does that mean by this logic ghosts don't exist? Not quite, but what science can tell us, is that the natural universe is comprised of laws and absolutes. If there are no laws or absolutes, nothing has to ever make sense according to how our minds work in this supernatural thing that no one has ever seen, heard, tasted, touched, or been to. Things could exist as an infinite amount of other things all at one time, take up all or none of space as we know it, be full and hungry and never have to eat simultaneously. Does this make sense to anyone? Here's the kicker... No matter how, why, when, or where it exists, it has to be made of something. Why? The best part about knowing that it has to be made of something, is because if a ghost used to be you and you were made of something (which medical science can tell you all about), something that comes from you, also has to be made of something that at least partially comes from you, correct? That something would be matter.

Matter is believed to be indestructible, meaning matter is never created or destroyed, only transformed. A tree burns down and the wood from it eventually becomes ash and smoke in simplest terms. everything that the wood was made of never stopped existing, just little molecules of it mixed with this, some mixed with that, some was broken down into this, etc... So, if there is anything in the human body that can become a ghost by simply dying, all of the components that were in the body before hand that produces a ghost would have to be present, no? Actually, there would be even less present at death because your body produces certain things while alive like chemicals in the brain, adrenaline, etc. that would no longer be produced after death, so anything a ghost is made of can't be made by anything the body can produce. That would mean life, in general, hinders its existence. Just like a chicken egg has to come from a chicken, a ghost would have to come from a dead person... if a ghost is in fact supposed to be the spirit of a dead person, or anything relative to that. In short, a ghost would be the "fruit" of death.

The reason I want to go into a little bit of detail is because people have claimed to see ghosts; completely visible by the naked eye. If you can see it (while the brain is working properly), it has to be made of something. Also if you can see it, it has to be made of a physical substance. That doesn't necessarily mean that a ghost would have to be tangible, but there have also been many, many claims by people that a ghost "touched them". If it can touch you, it would have to be tangible. Not only that, you should be able to touch it too. Are your ghosts upstairs? Are they in the attic? They would also have to be tangible to be able to "walk" up floors, ladders, whatever. It would also have to be subject to the laws of gravity, or you could just pick any point A and point B and that line could be traveled by said ghost without logic, restriction, or any kind of physical law you could apply. The ghost would then have to exert force with it's "feet" in order to be on any floor of any building, otherwise it would just keep falling through everything until they hit the center of the earth, that is if it's subject to gravity. If it's not made of a physical substance, you wouldn't be able to see it. Either it's physical or it's not. It can't be both. Passing through a wall would have to make it intangible and made of nothing physical. According to quantum tunneling, there would be a snowballs chance in hell of even one molecule of your ghostly self making it to the other side. It would be possible, but highly unlikely. What would be impossible is the whole enchilada making it to the other side. Either it's tangible or not, it can't be both.

The most complicated thing I've seen about what it would be made of, is a ghost's apparent ability to become visible and then invisible whenever the mood strikes, or... whenever it's done. This would mean that whatever it's made of is changing its molecular structure somehow. The only way it would be able to accomplish this is by changing it's own temperature, and even then it would have to have a mechanism to even need to be at a certain temperature in either extreme. That would be a natural mechanism; but here I thought ghosts were supernatural. It has to be one or the other, it can't be both.

Let's say a ghost is made of something. What would it be? I would think the most common answer would just be "energy". Some might say something like ectoplasm, but I'll get to that in a minute. There are basically three types of energy, kinetic, potential, and rest energy. I'm not going to go about explaining these, but you're reading this on the internet, which is a great tool to find out all about them. So if a ghost is made of energy... which type of energy is it? Apparently it's the one you can sometimes see and sometimes can't. Now ectoplasm on the other hand, has no proof of even existing in and of itself. I've seen a couple definitions, but it's supposed to be some kind of substance that secretes from a medium's (psychic that can talk to the dead) skin during a seance or whenever they're reaching out to touch someone. If this is true, this would be something that could be experimented on in a controlled environment by actual scientists. You would think, a physical substance (It's made of something!) that comes out of someone's skin could be analyzed. Somebody please scrape off a sample. 

Medium Eva C. supposedly produced an ectoplasmic face from her ear during a séance. Many of her "faces" were later revealed to have been cut from a Paris newspaper.

 (caption and photo taken from http://www.prairieghosts.com/ectoplasm.htmlhttp://www.prairieghosts.com/ectoplasm.html)

There's one other point that was made on Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t (here) that I wanted to include in this discussion, that every photograph of supposed ghosts (that I've ever seen anyway) shows these ghosts wearing clothes. What?! So now we not only have to figure out what the ghosts are made of, we also have to find out how they got clothes that are obviously made of the same non-physical, yet physical, yet tangible, yet non-tangible, yet natural, yet supernatural material? It comes in all sizes for all size ghosts, yet are also free because I doubt ghosts go to a ghost store and pay with ghost money. Understand I'm not trying to make fun of all of this, but why would the disembodied spirit of a person need clothes, let alone need invisible clothes to cover up invisible nudity. Does any of this make sense? For that matter lots of people are nudists, yet so far there are no cases of nudist ghosts, transvestite ghosts, ghosts with name-brand accessories, or even a ghost with a discernible hobby. Just think if you saw one wearing a purse; you'd have to try and figure out what all the stuff inside is made of too. I'll ask again, does any of this make sense?

Anyway, stay tuned for part four where we try to discuss the purpose of ghosts.

Are Ghosts real? or Do They Exist? (Part 2)

Last time we discussed What happens when you die according to the Bible and discovered that the Ancient Hebrews believed When you die, you are gone... you're dead (If you haven't yet read part 1, please do so now). There is no function and you cease to exist. They also compared death to sleep, in that their ancestors were all sleeping, awaiting the Day of Resurrection. Were they wrong? For that matter, why does the majority of christianity that supposedly studies the Bible believe something different? Even though I only showed you a portion of evidence to support the idea that ghosts are not even possible according to the Bible, there cannot be any evidence to the contrary or you will have contradictory statements in what's believed to be infallible Scriptures according to christiandom. If even one line is wrong, then you cannot use the entire text to study and research within itself. You will have obvious misinterpretations and a broken religion.

Be that as it may, I'd like to stay with the question, "what happens when you die?" and look at it on a more physical level. In order to answer this question more clearly, we would have to know what it is to die, or how to define death. We all know that when you die, your body stops moving and eventually begins to decompose and rot; anyone can see that with their own eyes. In scientific terms, Death is the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Obviously, without biological functions that sustain the living organism, the organism is no longer alive. (Let me stress that the term "dead" is synonymous with the phrase "no longer alive".) Oddly enough this definition also covers animals, does it not? So what conditions have to be met in order for you to be dead? You can be deemed legally dead when just the brain dies and the rest of your body still functions. If one could "become" a ghost, could it be done when only the brain is dead? or does your mind have to wait for the rest of you to die, even though most believe that the functions of the rest of the body are unnecessary for the existence of a ghost to be possible. If a ghost cannot be "born" from a brain-dead human body and it shouldn't need a body to function, then why not? Modern medicine can't bring a brain back to life. You're basically doomed to die when the machines stop keeping your body alive for you. So, this raises the question, if you're only brain dead, (a state of being in which you are considered legally dead) and your mind is completely dead (the only part of your being that is required to supposedly "be" a ghost, considering no ghost is claimed to have a physical body), can you become a ghost with the only part of you that goes with you after you die (if of course you believe in an immortal soul)? Is the occurrence of brain death the point in which ghost life begins?

One of the reasons I want to discuss what happens to you when you die is because it's hard to define and determine death in a general sense. This is mainly because it's difficult to define "life", death's contrast. Without life, you can't have death. So what other definitions of death are there and which one or several of those are necessary to "make" a ghost? At one time, death was considered when the heart stops, but now medical science can keep that part of the body alive while other pieces of you die. If you're in a hospital bed lying there, completely brain dead with no chance of ever coming back, do you become a ghost right then, or does the part of you that supposedly leaves your body as a ghost hibernate or lays dormant until the rest of you dies? If it happens when just your brain is dead, then how long after said death occurs? Same question if you have to wait until one hundred percent of total body function ceases? Is there a waiting period or an immediate reaction upon a certain definition of death? Are you forced out like an air pocket trapped under water? Do you have to ease your way out like giving birth to a baby? Are you pulled from your body by an invisible force or shot out like an arrow?

If you are considered brain dead, suspension of consciousness (the electrical activity in your brain) must be permanent. Some people believe that only some parts of the brain need to cease functioning in order for you to be considered brain dead and maintain only the neo-cortex is necessary for consciousness. If so, Can you become a ghost only after the neo-cortex dies out?

If one has to wait until every part of their body loses all function to become a ghost, Does the body change somehow when the ghost part of them is extracted? If not everybody becomes a ghost, is it extracted in a different manner when the ghost portion becomes something else or "goes" elsewhere? After death, the body undergoes several changes; most notably Rigor morrtis and Pallor mortis. Are these natural procedures that the body undergoes after death, or are they necessary to produce a ghost independently of the process of death. We know that every person's body goes through these stages, so if not everyone becomes a ghost, then these things that happen post-mortem aren't likely related.

Science can tell you what definitely happens in a biological sense to your body when you die. After that, countless cultures around the world have completely different beliefs. No accounts of ghosts are all that consistent and can even change within the same culture over time. Why is that? Are there billions of people mistaken as to what they saw or heard? Are certain ghosts native to certain regions? Is one culture right and everybody else is wrong? Do people in different regions die differently? Are there an unspeakable amount of procedures and ways to create a ghost? Or do none of these things matter because there are no such things as ghosts. If ghosts do exist, then every piece of data and every variable is important. Keep in mind anecdotal evidence isn't credible. You can tell any kinds of stories about experiences you want, but without conclusive data (or in this case, any real data at all), there is no proof behind your claims that what you observed was in fact a ghost. There aren't even any constants to the idea of ghosts. All ghosts might be different in some ways, like how individuals are different, but they would still have to have testable similarities, considering they're all ghosts. Just like no two snowflakes are alike, they're all still made of snow, and science can prove the existence of snow.

The subject of ghosts and whether or not they exist still isn't finished as far as I'm concerned, so Part 3 of this discussion is only moments away! Be sure to keep an open mind and try not to draw any conclusions just yet.

Are Ghosts real? or Do They Exist? (Part 1)

Do you believe in ghosts?

That's a pretty loaded question isn't it? It would be more productive to ask "Are ghosts real or, do they exist?", but does "evidence" for or against such a thing change opinions? Here's where it gets complicated. See, there will never be evidence to support that they exist AND that they don't exist. If someone has blue eyes, you will never find evidence to support that he has brown eyes; does that make sense? Things that are true and fact don't contain evidence that contradict in that sense. Actually, if there are two opposites and one is true, the first thing that would be false is the other; (i.e. if you're inside a building, you're definitely NOT outside of a building.)

So if it were to be proven that ghosts don't exist, how could you prove that they do at the same time? You couldn't; but apparently it's a debatable subject, mainly because there are variables that most people just aren't sure about. One example that comes right off the top of my head is, what happens when you die? One would think anyone that could answer this could answer whether or not ghosts exist. Now, I myself have never died and I can assure you that everyone reading this post isn't dead, so once you experience said death, I'd say there's a good chance it would be impossible to talk about. As far as what happens when you die, I'd like to break down the evidence a little, starting with the Bible, even though there are many different Bibles, I believe since the majority of the United States is christian, it might be a good place to start.

Were there any ghosts in the Bible? Did people talk about the dead and their ghosts floating around? Did God ever discuss ghosts to his followers? If there was something about ghosts, could there be any facts about what they are, what they're made of, or why they exist in the first place? Looking into the Old Testament, we see quite a bit of context where death is involved. The ancient Hebrews related death to "sleep". I'll give just a few examples.

Matt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

1Cor. 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

1Cor. 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake...

Eph. 5: (14) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead...

Psalm 13:3
 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death;

They didn't believe in an immortal soul, whereas you stay conscious after death and that consciousness leaves your dead body to exist elsewhere.They believed when you die, you no longer exist. Death is complete unconsciousness.When you're dead, you're dead; there is no being "alive" somewhere else. I'll give another few examples about the state of being (or state of the dead) in what they call sheol, or the grave:

-Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
 

-Psalm 31:17 Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave.
 

-Psalm 88:11 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?
 

-Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
 

-Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

According to the above verses, these are some of the attributes of the dead in the grave (with just these verses alone):

1. They don't remember God

2. They don't give God thanks

3. They are silent

4. God's loving kindness is not declared

5. God's faithfulness in destruction is not declared

6. There is no work

7. There is no devise (plan or scheme in which to do things)
8. There is no knowledge

9. There is no wisdom

10. The dead know nothing

11. The dead have no reward.



Edit: There are those that believe that all of this is just referencing what happens to your body and not your soul/spirit. Here are a few proofs that these verses are in fact talking about you and not just a part of you:

Gen. 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.
(The second definition and part of the first definition in two separate online dictionaries show "departing" means "to die" 1,2)


Ezekiel 13:19
And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?


Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die...


Rev. 16:3
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

The soul dies. Is there a difference between a soul and a spirit? Yes, actually. According to Scripture the spirit does actually go somewhere:

Ecc. 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 


Could you believe that this is supposed to be the formula for every person that ever lived and not just believers? If you say that this is where your consciousness lies, then it would be impossible for you to "go" to a place like hell, no? If your spirit was who you are and your spirit has to go directly to God, wouldn't that also rule out becoming a ghost, therefore denying a good/evil scenario based relocation? Just so we're clear that "the dust" refers to people:



Gen. 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

How can all these conditions be met and still produce ghosts of dead people that walk, talk, move things around, interfere with electrical equipment, etc...? All of these verses agree with the idea that the dead do not function in another location. If they did, they'd be vegetables compared to the standards of the living. There are also many questions this poses according to additional Scripture.

1. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Why didn't he immediately inform everyone what it was like to be dead? He was dead several days, that should have been long enough to get a good look around. You could say it just wasn't recorded. If so, then why not?! Most new age christians believe that before Jesus died everyone went to hell, because if they didn't and Lazarus ended up in heaven, it would mean achieving heaven membership was possible without Jesus and therefore made his death unnecessary. So, Lazarus could have gone to hell; and don't you think that would have been a very important message to convey, that you're judged by God to be tortured forever without mercy if you don't meet certain conditions. You would think Jesus was Lazarus's personal savior before he was crucified, no? Unless he was just dead in the grave and didn't have anything to say about it because everyone else believed he was actually dead.

2. There is mentioned in the Scripture several times a Day of Resurrection, where everyone that has ever died is brought back to life simultaneously and are later judged and rewarded or chastised according to their works. As far as I know this only happens once (hence "day"), so why, if there are possibly billions and billions of people in the paradise and perfection of Heaven, would God take them away from that to be judged yet again? They are dead, aren't they? and why for that matter would they need to be judged again? Was God mistaken the first time? Did they sin in heaven? One could claim that those that went to hell are the ones that will be judged. If so, I repeat, Was He mistaken the first time?

3. Christianity claims that the judgment to be sent to Heaven or Hell is eternal. If that was the case, there would be no coming back. Plus, not only would they have to be there forever, they would also have to have been there forever ago, since eternal means without beginning and without end. So, technically speaking, you were always there and never lived on this Earth. How is it that God makes your destination eternal, yet temporary, since he's raising you from the dead? Isn't that a little wishy-washy?

4. Christianity also believes that when you die, you have to go to either heaven or hell. If God is in control of everything, how can some people slip through the cracks to become ghosts? Are some people just that sneaky? So not only are you alive, conscious, aware, or what have you, now you have at least three possible places in which to relocate. Are christians just misinformed about their ultimate destiny? Can one that's claimed to be destined to hell escape such an unspeakable tragedy by simply floating around?

Unfortunately the Scriptures don't support the existence of ghosts. Either that or the Scriptures that christianity swears by is uneducated on the subject of the paranormal. Even the idea of a human soul wandering around aimlessly after they die is a complete contradiction to what christianity should be behooved to believe. The verses above are pretty clear to point out some characteristics of being dead, but the characteristics of a ghost are non-existent in the texts. However, I'm not finished in my quest to ask or even answer a few questions about the existence of ghosts, so stay tuned until part 2 of my paper.

Introduction

I named this blog as such to establish not only the type of content I wish to discuss, but to also try to use common sense while searching out some of life's answers to questions either we all have, or maybe some questions that no one else has even thought of yet. This mission statement proposes that maybe, just maybe we can find the answers we're looking for if we just look hard enough. 

Knowledge in this world seems like a leaf blowing in the wind. It's possible to catch it and keep hold of it, but if you let it go for even a moment, you can lose it forever. However, this is an age of information, whether it's true or false, it's flooding the streets and being shoved into our faces. Some people are learning how to check facts, research, cross-reference, have new ideas and experimenting those ideas to try and make something concrete for others to learn, some people believe in things because they were taught by someone else, whether or not they can prove what's true and what's not. There are also those who hear things through the grapevine, where information could possibly change as it changes hands; this person tells this person, that person tells another, and so on... The former is what I'm hoping to achieve.

So what do we do with the information once we get it? Do we take hold of it, teach our children, teach others? Do we bother to know for sure that what we're passing on is legitimate? Let me give you an example of what I mean. We know that 2+2=4, right? We know because of (originally) the Scientific method and common sense that 2+2 will never equal anything except 4. It's a fact that none in their right mind can argue. Real, true knowledge is like this. When you have something in math, science, history, etc... to be true, that's just what it is. Nothing can make it untrue. This applies to the opposite as well. When something is false, no matter what you do, what you say, or what you believe, nothing will make it true. When something is true, the further you research it will further establish its truthfulness. When something is false, further research will help prove its falsehood. I realize this seems redundant of me, but I thought it necessary to stress the importance of these things. 

To be brutally honest, I personally can't stand it when someone just decides that the rest of the world needs to hear them speak and wastes that precious time preaching what they think is a fact when in fact... it isn't. People tend to get irritated with me because they just felt like saying something that wasn't really important, but on the contrary, I think it was. Even the smallest idea can build and destroy nations if you look at the big picture.

That being said, I hope to bring some new things to the table and maybe try and help myself and others reach the conclusions they seek out, separating fact from fiction, the sensible from the ridiculous, and maybe post some unanswered questions to think about for later.