Posted: May 13, 2010 9:00 pm
by Moridin
Lion IRC wrote:Use Matthew 27:53 as a definition and use the witness testimony as proof.
I dont think it matters whether the appearance of the exact same single "ghost" is observed by more than one person.
I would think the debate should focus on the phenomenon as a whole.
The "same ghost" might not be identically described by two eye witnesses - so what?
Lion (IRC)


1. That is not a definition. It just provides relational attributes (X relates to Y, or X did Z), not primary attributes (X is Y).

2. Even if it was accepted as a definition, it would not necessarily be a ghost. The description is entirely consistent, perhaps even more so, with other mythological entities, such as vampires or zombies.

3. Does not resolve the special pleading aspect of such an argument. Far more people claim to be eyewitness to alien abductions, be sure that taking alternative medicine works or [enter any popularly believed delusion that opponent do not believe in], yet you do not believe this. Why? If your opponent provides a reason, why not apply this same reason to ghosts?

4. Does not resolve the problem of the fallibility of personal testimony or the invalidity anecdotal evidence.

5. In order to accept the bible as valid, we must presuppose a great deal of things, such as the existence of the biblical god, who is a brainless mind. But if we need to assume the existence of a brainless mind (the biblical god) in order demonstrate the existence of brainless minds (ghosts or spirits in Matthew 27:53), then that is merely a circular argument.

6. That approach opens up an entirely new aisle of criticism, such as biblical criticisms.