So, just what are we talking about?

[kandrathe]

As for unexplained cases of spirits or possession, no person's witness accounts ever matched. No 'professional mediums' either.

None? Never? How are you sure of this?

Just so we are not introducing any fallacies;

* FALSIFIABILITY
Also known as the Appeal to Ignorance.   Karl Popper: A conjecture or hypothesis must be accepted as true until such time as it is proven to be false. Popper maintains that scientists approach the truth through what he calls "conjecture and refutation." In actuality, scientists approach the truth not through conjecture and refutation, but through conjecture and CONFIRMATION - the demonstration, by means of careful experiment, that a hypothesis corresponds to the facts of reality.  This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized by the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Until the phenomenon is proven TRUE there is no obligation to base your attitude toward it on the assumption that it MIGHT be true. If there were such an obligation, then you would be obliged to give serious consideration to every crackpot notion that has ever been put forward.  Falsifiability can be a valuable intellectual tool: it can help you to disprove ideas which are incorrect. But it does not enable you to prove ideas which are correct. 

Science forms hypothesis, and then acts through experimentation to verify the hypothesis correct. This does not prove the hypothesis is true, but verifies the hypothesis within the limits of the experiment. Hardly anything can be proved to be true. Science can help us to find what is untrue, and hint at what might be true.

There is no belief involved in proving and using whether something is true or not.

Are we talking about truth, or perceived truth. If we are talking about the truth that is proveable truth, then I only know of one realm where that is beyond doubt. Simple math and simple logic(and then even Gödel might disagree). I can believe that 3<>4, because that is readily proved. The real world quickly moves beyond the realm of where humans can delve, and quickly beyond what we can prove. Nature as far as I can tell is more in the realm of complex non-linear systems of chaos where only measurment and statistics provides models of aggregate behavior. We can hold some beliefs as intuitively obvious, even though they are unproveable (e.g. two parallel lines never intersect). Even the Big Bang theory is really a theory, and while some detect or "sense" phenomena that suggest the theory is true. It's not a problem that can be easily replicated in a laboratory. Will we ever know it is true? Is it intuitively obvious? At least it seems right until something disproves it, or a better theory comes along.

On the other hand, the scientist (or anyone) who dismisses religion because the idea of an omnipotent God is logically inconsistent is guilty of intellectual hypocrisy. Does he or she think that science is free from inconsistencies? Perhaps he or she is not aware of the existence of Russell's paradox or Goedel's Theorem. Actually, aside from obvious methodological differences, science and theology have much in common. Each is an attempt to model reality, founded on unprovable articles of faith. If the existence of a benign supreme being is the fundamental assumption at the heart of religion, certainly the practice of science is founded on the unprovable hypothesis that the universe is rational that its behavior is subject to human understanding. Through science we construct highly useful models which permit us to understand the universe, in the sense of predicting its behavior. Let us not commit the elementary epistemological mistake of confusing the model with reality. Surely scientists, as well as religious leaders, should possess sufficient maturity to realize that whatever ultimate reality there may be is not directly accessible to mortal humans. -- Prof. Harry W. Ellis, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd College

I say its a bad move to go fishing for evidence off a pre-supposed belief, and ignore all the glaring evidence against that belief.

What glaring evidence?