3 ms·
Your requirement for physical evidence is biased and so discounts the possibility that non-physical evidence may be available. It's like saying "I believe in X
by nprateem 3y ago
Your requirement for physical evidence is biased and so discounts the possibility that non-physical evidence may be available.
It's like saying "I believe in X. I won't accept any evidence against X. Since Y is against X, Y doesn't exist"
This means you'd never realise X was wrong in the first place.
- jules22 3y agoIf it's around for 3000 years, show the plentiful "non-physical evidence". If you still need to talk about the "possibility", it's just flim flam BS. If you think testimonies are evidence, and are making appeals to antiquity/tradition, you just aren't thinking in an educated way. None of that is "evidence".
- maleldil 3y agoExcept that we've seen plenty of times that "non-physical" evidence doesn't exist and has never been relevant, and usually there's a better physical explanation. So by default, it's fair to assume that non-physical evidence doesn't exist, and if you use that in argument, the burden of proof is yours. I'm open to accepting non-physical evidence if you can prove it exists. If you can, that would be very interesting, but it's likely that you can't. Again, anecdotes and tradition aren't evidence.