/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6902674
>implying I didn't say "recorded evidence of ghosts, would be evidence for ghosts"

Evidence for ghosts, is evidence for ghosts! DUHH! Not for gods, not for vampires, not for leprechauns, not for aliens, only for ghosts.

The reason you are making the argument from ignorance (argument from incredulity), is because you are jumping from "I can't explain ghosts" to "It must be magic/god". That isn't valid kid. There is nothing that inherently connects the "ghosts existing" to your "god". A "god exists" and "only ghost exits if that god exists", are two separate claims that you need to justify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

Maybe the ghosts came from aliens or are aliens, maybe from vampires, maybe from time travelers, maybe they are another weird species we never discovered, maybe from whatever! There are a million fucking explanations we could think of! You don't fucking get to just assume which one is correct. You have to prove or demonstrate the cause! You have to prove the connection!

Your fallacy; the argument from ignorance (incredulity) is the fundamental problem here. It is what most religious people do to justify their bullshit and what Heisenberg did as well. It is objectively shit and demonstrably bad reasoning.