New Video on Apologetics

[Esquilax]

All this to deflect from a logical fallacy that was espoused as logical?
.

You're misinterpreting the original point: whatever your threshold for proof, you don't believe every claim based solely on the possibility that evidence might exist. You've got your proof of a one horned ungulate animal, and that's fine, BUT: nobody was thinking of Elasmotherium when the word unicorn was mentioned. Nor were they just thinking of one horned horses. Probably, magic was involved in what we were all imagining, and that's why we react with disbelief.

Because negative evidence is still evidence: we have many hundreds of years of every magic claim being proven false weighing down any current claim of magic.

But that's not even the point: we need to make a distinction between belief and probability. You can accept that there is a probability- no matter how small- of something being true, without believing it to be true. For example, catfish, I have telekinetic powers. I can move shit with my mind, that's my thing. Now, I've just made a claim: do you believe it just on the possibility I might provide some evidence in future? Probably not, right? Instead, you'd furnish disbelief based on the fact that every other claim of telekinesis has been proven false and then- here's the important part- you'd demand proof. Demanding proof is an implicit acceptance that my claim might be true, but that it holds no real life weight without proof.

Which is what Cinjin was saying (I assume. Not gonna put words in anyone's mouth, here ) Even you don't accept all claims, because I assume your faith only features one god, not all of them? Even though you have an open mind on some things, your credulity is limited: you aren't blithely accepting everything.

Which... well, that was the original claim.