Wow, point made with massive use of Close-Mindedness + Generalization.
Seriously, this just made your IQ drop quite a bit.
Ghosts have enough witnesses and actual researches that make most think there's something there. Don't have the time right now to give massive back-up for this, but I'll be back.
If I may quote Carl Sagan:
"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones. "
In short, don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.
I've seen the evidence presented for the existence of ghosts. It's entirely - and I mean ENTIRELY - made up of personal anecdotes and pictures/videos. Nothing that is acceptable as "research". Pictures and videos can be faked, and anyone who has a grand father with fishing stories knows that eyewitness testimonies can never - and even courts have started to agree on this point - be accepted as reliable evidence.
No one has yet proposed a description of a ghost's chemical composition, the physical process by which one's consciousness is copied and put into ghost form, or even presented an actual case where the only explanation is a ghost. (Hint: this is actually impossible. One can not even present a purely imaginary scenario where ghosts are the only possible explanation, let alone a well-documented real one.)
