> Have you examined the arguments and evidence, which thousands of experts have examined and been convinced by? Which "thousands of experts", are you referring

> Have you examined the arguments and evidence, which thousands of experts have examined and been convinced by? Which "thousands of experts", are you referring to, exactly? Sure, there could be many thousands of "expert" historians. My point is, have you personally "examined the arguments and evidence" of those thousands of experts, who you claim have been convinced by said evidence? If not, why are you arguing on their behalf? >What exactly do you object to? I'm objecting to the fact that some of them (whose claims I have read in history or Sanskrit courses I studied in school), state things about people and events of centuries ago, as though they know for sure that those things happened in the way they claim - without providing evidence, except for their assertions, which anyone can make. That's why I have a healthy skepticism about them.