Well, I can't really respond to arguments that aren't directed at me. The arguments "in general" are far too numerous and varied to make a cohesive argument for, even if I believed in them all, which I don't.
I'd much rather you you respond to the arguments I'm actually making; otherwise, we'll always be talking at cross-purposes.
Subjunctive tone...? I'm not sure what you mean here. I wasn't talking about your grammar....
What I meant by "speculation" is you taking a speculative theory (like "ghosts are free-floating energy clouds" or "spirits are created every time a person is born") and then arguing against it. It's fine if you want to disprove those particular theories, but the concept of ghosts is not dependent on those theories (except in the least sophisticated side of popular imagination).
Yeah, but is that really the kind of people you want to argue with?
If you really want to take on a subject, you can't just sit back and attack the weakest theories. First, it's unsportsmanlike; it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Second, it's pointless; those theories are usually only held by people with a casual interest who don't think much about the subject to begin with. People who are serious about the subject put a lot more thought into it and come up with more sophisticated theories. It's them you should be going after, if you really want to challenge the concept of ghosts in general.
When we deal with ghosts, there's two sides to the issue: the side of folklore, and the side of scientific investigation. Ghosts as souls who are not at rest is right out of folklore. If it's the folklore side of ghosts you want to argue against...I'm not sure who your audience would be. Most of the "folk" who believe the "lore" without question aren't going to care about what science says; while the people who care about science already know the popular conception of ghosts is based on folklore, and take those notions with a grain of salt.