Ok, let's start off with his assertion of "proof exists." From what I gather, it's "Proof exists 'somewhere'."
As it's his belief:
"I believe proof exists somewhere."
But he doesn't believe we have the proof (beyond our means to detect), so:
"I believe proof exists somewhere (out of my perception)."
But beliefs should be based on perception, so his belief of "proof exists" translates to:
"I perceive proof exists somewhere out of my perception."
But if it's out of his perception then he isn't perceiving it. So we see that this is just his
imagination.
So he is imagining a state of certainty and then using that to support his belief.
That's really retarded.
"Somewhere out there there is proof I'm a frog. So I must be a frog!"
People use magical terms -- placeholder concepts. "Ghost" is one of these.
Have him define "ghost." REALLY define it. He believes EVP is evidence of ghosts, but
what is a ghost? He is applying "ghost" as an explanation for phenomena but was the concept built up from phenomena? No! The concept has no hard edges. You can replace "Ghost" with "Something" and you have just as much information.
"A book fell unexpectedly. A ghost did it."
"A book fell unexpectedly. Something did it."
It is an explanation of, "I have no explanation," that pretends to be more. Just like "Goddidit."