No, not really.Flacus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:01 pmIn a debate each side must prove their assertions. If a skeptic doesn't believe in spirits, he must explain why. Usually his disbelief is based on rejection of the evidence said to demonstrate the existence of spirits. Therefore in a debate, the skeptic is required to justify his position of disbelief by proving that what is asserted to be evidence for the existence of spirits is invalid. He doesn't have to prove spirits don't exist, he only has to prove there is no justification for belief in spirits.
You are making an assertion. An assertion for which most disinterested parties would disagree. The onus is on you to provide proof. There is a well known meme that summarizes the logic of this but suffice it to say that if you were accused of something it would decidedly not be up to you to prove anything. It would be up to the state to prove their accusation. Just the way it works.
Let me say first that, having read thru this thread, that you have been sorta sloppy. Sorry old bean but there it is.
What you need to do is to define terms. Very specifically and narrowly. Define "spirit". At the same time you are going to have to show how natural law allows for such things or, if no, how they fit in. Arm waving and rants about "thematic parallel planes of existence" are not acceptable. Neologisms are not acceptable. Made up words and phrases have zero standing as explanations.
n.b. Any appeal to quantum mechanics will result in a snap quiz on integral calculus.
Now define the realms of evidence that might be reliable in terms of proving the existence of the thing that you have defined. Clearly videos from one pov without a sterling provenience and without multiple corroborations are useless. If the "manifestations" are phenomenological then it behooves you to provide some framework for them. If they are reproduceable then we are 80% of the way there. We live in a world where video can be produced for $0.50. Having one shitty camera angle is suggestive of fraud.
As a side note: irreproduceability is a hallmark of these sorts of things. The fact that they cannot be reproduced is NOT proof of their existence.
So, start with definitions. They should be clear enough so that a reasonably clever 8th grader could understand them and play them back accurately in his or her own words.
Then we can get to the nature of acceptable evidence. I am happy to watch anything. Just remember that multiple pov's and corroborations from independent observers are necessary before I will spend time watching amateur sci fi.
Have at it.