|
SweetCheri -> RE: Do ghosts exist? (11/14/2011 8:47:03 PM)
|
quote:
You want to say how flawed my thoughts are then please step up to the plate and actually swing the bat. I am not so shy as Heather in this regard, so I will happily step up to the plate.
First, your entire argument is itself one big fallacy, it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. The lack of proof that ghosts do not exist, is not adequate proof that they do, nor can one infer anything other than that there is no proof from it.
Second, when you say this: "You are asking people to prove the scientifically unexplanable, when they have done so by simply saying it is so." you are being absurd. You are saying that people have proved the existence of ghosts merely by stating that they exist. Very well, if I state that winged elephants exist, are you obliged to admit that they do? By your reasoning you must, so clearly your reasoning is flawed, a person stating something exists is not adequate proof that it does exist, at best it can be considered proof of the belief that something exists.
Third, when you state that "People have proven they exist, they have experienced it. " you are again being absurd. All that these people have proved is that they have perceived certain things. The validity of these perceptions has not yet been established, it has been postulated that they might be hallucinations, which by their very nature would be indistinguishable from reality. Thus the experiences of the people who have related them on this thread may be real, or they may not be. Even if they are true perceptions, it does not prove anything other than that it was experienced. These people have attributed these experiences to ghosts, and from that they have inferred the existence of ghosts. On the surface this seems to be a logical conclusion, but it is in fact not, since there exists no proof or evidence that these experiences actually were caused by ghosts, only the opinion of the people who experienced them that they are. Opinions are not a valid proof, nor are they a valid basis for a logical inference.
Fourth, when you say "They are proven because people have experienced them and identified them. Therefore, the possibility exists" You have made yet another fundamental error, not only in your supposition that something has been proved (see the preceding section), but also in your conclusion. Even if your supposition were correct, you would still be incorrect in inferring that the possibility of ghosts existing is proven by it. The opinion that something exists does not create the possibility that it does. If I am of the opinion that Lyonesse exists hidden in a fog bank off the coast of Brittany. This does not create the possibility that it is so, it only creates the opinion that it is so.
And finally, when you say "Now it's up to you since you are stating the absolute of they do not exist to prove they are wrong in what they are identifying as ghosts and spirits." you are again incorrect. The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion, Heather is not making an assertion, she is denying one. The assertion here is that ghosts exist, so the burden of proof is on those who believe that they do, not on the skeptics.
There you are, I stepped up, I have swung, and I have connected. Now lets see if you can field it.
Oh, and just for your information, I do believe in ghosts, but that doesn't altar the fact that your reasoning and the argument based on it are fatally flawed.
CG.
|
|
|
|
