What's supernatural today may be science tomorrow, should someone quantify and reproducibly prove it.

Yes. And accepting the unproven ghosts and not accepting the unproven God is inconsistent if "unproven" is your standard.

---

And accepting the unproven ghosts and not accepting the unproven God is inconsistent if "unproven" is your standard.

But you're using unproven as the standard. The atheist ghost-believer may have all the reasons they require to believe in ghosts, and all the reasons they require to disbelieve in God.

---

This is for the sake of discussion. I'm an atheist and I don't belief in ghosts, faeries or other supernatural entities. But someone could (say) be convinced either by personal experience or some other evidence that ghosts exists, without having run into similar evidence that convinces them that deities exist. (Deities being, if nothing else, a great deal more powerful than ghosts.) On similar grounds, one could believe in elves, dryads, fauns without believing in deities. Or in reverse one could believe in god, even a classic Judeo-Christian god, and not believe in ghosts, because you conclude god does not let the dead return to earth before the last judgement. In short - given the right premises, to believe in ghosts withut believing in deities are vice-versa is not illogical - especially for people who have had mystical experience. That is I know people who believe in Christianity because they claim to have personally experience the presesence of Christ in their lives. I am not convinced, but given their experience I totally get why they would believe in Christ and not in ghosts. Similarly there are probably people who have personally experienced what they though were contacts with the dead, but not contact with Christ or other deities. I can see why they believe in ghosts but not gods. If my opinion is that both experiences are explained by brain chemistry rather than anything in the larger experience, I don't say so to the people who tell me they have been through one or the other.

---

I think everyone believes in things they will never be able to validate their own selves, but takes the word of someone else on. The frameworks differ.

Absolutely. That's how we get most of our understanding. In a lot of everyday things, we're later able to verify it for ourselves, but there's so much truth we come to know about because experts prove it. My response was based on how strongly you worded your question. Trudy said:

It seems to me that once you believe in the supernatural it seems silly to declare God an impossibility.

In reply, you asked:

Is the reverse true? I mean, can you believe in God and be absolutely sure other portions of the supernatural don't exist?

I can't see being absolutely sure no other portions of the supernatural exist. For all I know, it could be true, but there all bald and naked, the I don't understand the absolute conviction as one coming from logic.

Look at the Wikipedia entry for soul. Which one do you mean? Maybe juliana meant spirit.

That's what I was trying to find out--what she meant. What's the line between soul and ghost-of-the-deceased-as-residual energy? If I asked this in some wrong way, I'm blind to it, and I apologize.

---

Saying, belief in ghosts implies belief in the supernatural, and god is supernatural, therefore it makes no sense to deny god, doesn't follow for me. Belief in ghosts implies nothing but a belief that something exists which we call ghosts.

I believe in ghosts. I've seen them. I don't know what they are. Calling them "souls of the departed" is handy, and may even be true, but it's no more correct than calling them "residual bits of energy". Which also may be true, or not. I don't know enough to say what they are. I also don't know what god is. I don't see why I can't believe in ghosts without believing in god.

I believe in a Divine Presence in the universe, but when people ask if I believe in God, I usually say no. Because I don't want to be mistaken for a believer in any particular God or a follower of any particular religion. I don't want that, simply because I'm not one, and I dislike being misunderstood. I believe that the universe is god, and everything in it is god, and god is everywhere, everywhen, and everywhat. I believe god is the Divine Consciousness that is this universe, much as I am the consciousness that is this person. (Obviously, not an exact parallel. And obviously, god's consciousness is nothing like mine.) After I accepted that I wasn't ever going to be a Christian, I looked for many years for a religion that fit me, or at least a handy label to define myself to others. The best I found is "pantheist". And that's hardly helpful, because most people have never heard of it!

---

VW! Welcome to your new home!

---

Well, I was about to post something really self-pitying about how everybody hates me and I'll never get a teaching job, but I did just get a reply to one thing I submitted. So I'll hold off on the whinging for now.

---

Oh! I need a quick Heloise. I have a black skirt which is clearly not colorfast (made my fingers black on the drive out here). What should I do to it to make it so?

---

That's what I was trying to find out--what she meant

And what I was trying to find out is what you mean.

I can't see being absolutely sure no other portions of the supernatural exist.

I don't see any meaningful similarity between belief in god and belief in fairies. Therefore I don't see how believing in one makes your stance of utter disbelief in the other any weaker.

They are both unproven phenomena. So is the flying spaghetti monster.

---

Vinegar, Em. I think.

---