If X, then Y?

While those descriptions somewhat make sense.

  It seems that their divisions are arbitrary,  I don't see why gravity and dark energy need their own metaphysical space.

  that makes your definitions interchangeable and vacuous.

I don't see why gravity and dark energy need their own metaphysical space. 

that makes your definitions interchangeable and vacuous.

If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.

It would depend.  You say "guides" as if we have a free will, but he simply imposes on it when it goes against his plan.  Small difference.

If you're saying that he determines all of our actions in advanced, then I agree. 

If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.

there no data

Couldn't they exist, but all of your rules are inaccurate? 

If ghosts existed, then would we be able to detect them? 

But we don't call them ghost. 

we then need other methods to verify the accuracy of the testimony

But how do you know which testimony to disregard for these rules?

However,  I see no reason to suspect that ghost would be able to change their natural laws, maybe their own bodies.

it would basically be a guarantee that he get caught.

why do you assume that scientists don't take it seriously?

same way we see neutrinos

So the reason I call it speculation, is because we have no data for it. So that means we're just hypothesizing how a ghost could possibly behave or what rules of physics do or don't apply and what metaphysical rules do that have that we may not know about.  Like I said, there's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as we understand that you don't know it well enough to say it's true. 

The problem here is that you keep saying X thing about ghost as if it's an objective fact.  I would rather we say what a ghost "might" be like rather than plainly stating it to be the case.

Now if you're saying it that way because you know for sure that ghosts exist, then we have to stop and answer a critical question before I accept any of that.....   How do you know all these things you say about ghost are actually true? 

I don't necessarily asking if you know how ghost exist, but rather how you know all these weird and specific rules about them.

Couldn't they exist, but all of your rules are inaccurate?

If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.

Testimony is data

Not false.  Testimony is data.  It might not be great data.  But it's data nonetheless.

Okay, I have to disagree strongly here.  Ghost and spirits have not been known for any amount of time.  This is why I draw the line at speculation.  If ghosts were known, then we'd have actual data to confirm them instead of data to confirm that people think they might have sighted them.   I'm not trying to poke fun at you when I say this, but you're being intellectually lazy when you do that.  If you want people to take your claims seriously, you need to make sure your evidence is rigorous and leads you through ever step.  When you skip a step like that, you create a non sequitur and under mind your claims.

When I spoke of speculation.  I was specifically talking about the rules that you said ghost have to abide by.  Not necessarily the rest of it. 

I understand that you base them off of testimony.  but it's still speculation. 

Well you can't say that you've seen a ghost because you don't have anything objective to compare it to. 

You seen something and you don't know what it is so you call it a ghost because it seems to fit the bill.

 While what you seen might have actually been seen by you, that doesn't make it a ghost.  What if it was just something that looked like a ghost, but really it was some other incorporeal being.  What if it wasn't a being at all?

What if you just witnessed dark matter for a moment?  I mean, if we're assuming that unseen things can be seen sometimes then why does it have to be a ghost?  It could be a lot of things that we normally don't see. 

Maybe it was a bundle of neutrinos(those actually can blink in and out of observation).   What if it was a hole to another dimension?  This is why I say you need to not skip steps.  You're leaving the door open for vacuity.

Well when I said rules, I was talking about natural laws.  Which are just descriptions.  Since ghosts don't have solid evidence behind them, we have no descriptions to go off of.  Therefore, any "rule"  that you profess has no justification for being right.  At best, it's just your hypothesis.

So it's not that people don't understand what evidence is.  But when people ask for evidence, there's a contextual implication that they want the evidence to be sufficient to either justify the claim or at least send people on the right path.  Testimony accomplishes neither of these things.   Technically, just about anything could be evidence.  That's not the problem.  You need sufficient evidence.

My mom used to claim to see ghosts. 

She also claimed that she had dreams about people before they died.  The funny thing is how there was always a more logical explanation and she always jumped to the supernatural one first. 

I thought nothing of this as a kid, and even claimed to have strange things happen to me as well.  When I got older, I was able to explain all of it with ease.

It wasn't spirits talking to me.  It was me being indoctrinated and seeing what I wanted to see.

Again, not rules, what rules did I say?

OMG, why don't you try asking questions instead of asserting things? you seriously think I don't know that when I see a spirit I saw a spirit? that's a bold assertion there.

Oh wow a question what do ya know! but not really a sincere question, first you're already doubting what I observed before you asked me. Try again without the nonsense before it. In other words, just be courteous.

Because number one they were beings, not objects and not shadows,

I explained all of this I never skipped any steps bro, did you read anything I wrote?

That's absolutely absurd, and really the problem with this conversation so far. You come across to me as a pretty objective, rational person, only when you move into the spiritual arena all that flies out the window.

Actually it was your assertion there was no evidence, and as of right now that's what I have been challenging to put you on the right path, after that I challenge you with my own observations to answer all your objections sufficiently but you must allow me to do that and stop doubting it.