I don't think ghosts, by definition, are things that can be seen or heard. I agree that some people claim to have seen/heard ghosts but that does not mean that ghosts are innately detectable or that we have the right tools to detect them if they exist.
And ghosts are just an example anyway so the real specifics of ghosts is not really the point. I'm just saying that there is PLENTY about the universe that we cannot detect. Mankind is much, much, much better defined by what we don't know than what we do know. That certainly does not mean that ghosts really exist and we just don't know it but it does mean that just because we can't currently detect it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
If you are going to argue that we can measure ghosts, then you will need to support that. Of course that requires you to make a convincing case that we know enough about ghosts to determine what it would take to record an actual ghost and then that we have the instruments to do it.
I don't have to ask a theist to define God. I'll just use the dictionary definition.
And I believe I made it clear that I have yet to hear a convincing claim that God exists from a theist so that doesn't effect my agnosticism (if I ever heard a truly convincing theistic argument I probably wouldn't be an agnostic anymore). I expect that neither the theist or the atheist can support that their view is correct.
That's why I argue from the agnostic position here. It doesn't seem like one can support the alternatives.
Bookmarks