Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Lebowski achiever
Yes - if he absolutely believes it was a murder, that is irrational. It could have been staged. Or the person might not have died. Assuming it is a
murder is irrational. Of course it's still possible it was a murder, which is why the cops should be involved, but to say it
definitely was a murder is, as strange as it may seem to you, irrational.
And no, I didn't watch TV. However I did watch some TV on my computer, which I'm fairly sure happened, as I can repeat it ad infinitum on request
to anyone who wishes to observe. I can do it in a controlled environment, with any scientific instrument you want measuring it. That is the
difference 
Okay, I can see how you can say believing in Ghosts is irrational, but only at first glance. I get that trusting your senses
CAN BE irrational.
However, you are absolutely stuck in absolutes.
If you witness a murder, an actual murder, and the police cannot find any evidence later on, it doesn't make you irrational for believing you saw a
murder (just as you are claiming it would be irrational for you to believe in ghosts). In fact, I would say it would be far more irrational to think
you saw nothing.
Let's illustrate:
You are walking down the street. You are approaching the corner as you two people standing on this corner. As you get within 15 feet of said corner
you see a person pull out a gun and shoot the other person in the head. You see the blood spatter right in front of your feet as the person goes limp
and hits the ground. They are clearly dead. You then run away and escape. Meanwhile, this person cleans up all the evidence, and disposes of the body.
However, you have since called the police. They cannot prove there is murder. Would it be more rational to continue in your belief that you saw a
murder? Or would it be more rational to decide that maybe you did not see this murder?
I think it's quite obvious that it would be far more rational to believe you saw a murder. Why? Because you are using sound logic and judgment. A
bullet went into someone's head. You saw their brains scatter all about on the ground. You watched them go limp and hit the ground. You know that
this type of injury typically kills people. And you know that someone would have a motive to clean up said crime. To avoid getting caught. Therefore,
based on what you know to be true, it is only rational to conclude that you did witness the murder. In fact, with all that knowledge, it becomes
highly irrational to assume said person survived this incident.
Now onto ghosts. This is a completely different subject matter. Which is where your discussion into absolutes is killing you. At one point, you
compare a non-living candle burning out to a living human being eventually dying off. How can something non-living have a living soul? Isn't a soul
only defined as existing in the living? Thus, your analogy makes no sense.
However, does it make sense to blindly believe something you saw was ghost related? No. Why, because there are various other things we know of that
can cause the same effects, so to speak. For instance, creaking in the floor or ceiling when no one else is home, could be wood settling. Scratching
on the walls, could be a rodent, bird, or any other animal. I could go on. However, witnessing experience after experience, as some people have,
meanwhile ruling out other causes, can turn what is, at first glance, irrational into rational. As I stated earlier, rationality is using sound logic
and judgment. Thus, after eliminating all other potential affects, and being left with only one potential option (that we currently know about/believe
in), you would be of sound judgment in saying that it is a ghost. You would at the same time be of sound judgment in concluding it is not a ghost.
Since, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of ghosts, it is always rational to assume that whatever occurred was not a ghost. But that
doesn't mean it cannot be rational to presume it was indeed a ghost.
Finally, the inability to scientifically measure a ghosts existence does not show, in any way, that there is no such thing as ghosts. That's because,
if they do exist, a ghost would be a person, who would likely have the ability to choose to, or refuse to, participate in any controlled experiments.
