Fallacy or not?

Here is your story in my own words. 

Person A (PA) asks how Person B (PB) knows that Indonesia exists. PB says that he has empirical knowledge of Indonesia; he experienced Indonesia. PA does not think PB has empirical knowledge that Indonesia exists. PA is in fact skeptical about empirical knowledge in general. Here is why he is skeptical of this kind of knowledge. He has had ghost-like experiences. But he knows that ghosts do not exist. So, experience is not enough to determine that something exists. In this case, experience is not enough, PA claims, to tell PB that Indonesia exists.

Did I understand your example correctly?

If you can believe that indonesia exists because of experience same way we can believe jesus walked on water through experience of people

Not objecting but just telling

What if the person claims that happiness and bliss is just imagination?

It is in that happiness is a state of mind.

Thanks for reply

And let me put this in a similar senario 

Sam claims: Jesus walked in water!

Shaun claims: Prove it that jesus walked from water.

Sam claims: Because we have many eyewitness

Shaun claims: proves nothing. 

Sam claims: how do you know that indonesia exists?

Shaun: because there are many people that can verify it because we have experienced indonesia and we have pic.

Sam claims: how do you know that pictures are realiable and not photoshopped and are not from other places?

Shaun claims: because many people live there they winessed it and they can verify that.

Sam claims: if you can realy on this experience then why not this that jesus walked from water?.

Can these agruments be deconstructed or is it a strong claim and cannot refutable.

This is all just word play. One needs to be precise when another is attempting to equate horrible evidence with strong evidence. Sam is obviously unable to either understand or acknowledge quality of evidence and Shaun is unable to communicate this effectively. Again, this is more of a problem with epistemology than fallacies.

Can you pls tell that in details what are you telling and what did sam and shaun did?  

I won't go line by line, but we will start here:

"Because we have many eyewitness" (to Jesus walking on water).

No we don't. What we have is a book that says people saw it. This is categorically different from say millions of people who, can all be named (not anonymous), and are alive today, who have seen Indonesia.

Btw thanks for the answer

What if person A tells book is written by people

I don't understand. Perhaps you can put this in an example.

You claim that there is a book saying that people saw jesus walking on water. Book was written by people, therefore book contains eyewitness of people saying these thing. Btw I am not objecting just an opinion what if the person says this

Harry Potter is a book written by people. The book claims Voldemort exists. This doesn't mean there are eyewitness accounts to Voldemort.

Okay

What if the person says that, 

Science book says micro oragnisms exists and scientists have eyewitnesses doesnt mean they have eyewitnesses

Again, these are religious arguments... really not the right place for this.

Can you please give your answer in detail?