Three methods of discovering "the truth"

[_KevinSim]

Would you really hazard that guess, Kev? Considering GBH didn't "know too much about" his own doctrine? lol

Some points of doctrine are more important than others. I can't really think of anything more important in a faith's doctrine than how one goes about determining what the truth is. I have no problem with Gordon Hinckley concentrating on the most important points of doctrine, even if it means he doesn't "know too much about" some of the less important points.

[_KevinSim]

As you state it? No. I'll grant you that Christian truth begins with the presupposition that there is some Deity.

To be fair, I start with that presupposition too. I have no problem assuming a good deity exists who has some control over the universe.

I've never seen such a Christian "formulation" that made any persuasive sense at all.

Okay. Others feel differently.

What formulations do Biblical Christians find persuasive?

They haven't. They've come to the conclusion that the Bible contains all the Truth necessary for salvation. Two different things.

Fine. How have Biblical Christians come to the conclusion that the Bible "contains all the Truth necessary for salvation"?

[_Hoops]

1. Show that the "Holy Ghost" exists

What are you looking for as evidence?

2. Show that a group of "ghosts" exists independently of the HG

Why should I do that when that is a position that I don't hold?

3. Explain in what ways the first ghost (or spirit or whatever) doesn't belong as a classification of the first group

I suspect you know already.

4. Explain why he (or anyone else) has the authority to then define them as belonging to separate groups.

I can't.

So, I feel pretty safe in my continued assertion that Christians believe in a ghost. The nomenclature and distinction of "spirit" versus "spook" is a completely arbitrary one.

Maybe so. But it's one we are allowed to define and you, as the one criticizing, are required to base your criticisms on that definition.