2 ms·
The GP says this is clearly fiction because there's no evidence. The retort is that we can't expect evidence as "exists" in some other fictional story. /me sh
by drewcoo 3y ago
The GP says this is clearly fiction because there's no evidence.
The retort is that we can't expect evidence as "exists" in some other fictional story.
/me shakes head slowly
- b800h 3y agoYou're completely missing everything outside the ontological category of "things that can be broken apart into stuff that I can identify with a microscope". Realistically this conversation is a science vs. religion argument that will end up in a stalemate somewhere around Tarski's Undefinability Theorem. We disagree on the nature of the ground of being.