You still did not get the point did you?
No evidence of X is not the same as X does not exist. You made the equation "No evidence for X = X does not exist". It is incorrect. That is what I responded to. You then wanted to argue that your equation is correct by bringing up Santa Claus as an example and the equation still is incorrect. "No evidence for Santa Claus" does not equate to "Santa Clause does not exist". There are other arguments you can make to make a case that Santa does not exist, but "No evidence for X = No X" is not it. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe X to be real or not, or whether or not I know X to be real or not, it is simply a matter of your equation being incorrect.
You want to argue this pet peeve of yours go ahead, but if you are too stubborn to see the error in your reasoning, that is not philosophy's fault.
No evidence of X is not the same as X does not exist. You made the equation "No evidence for X = X does not exist". It is incorrect. That is what I responded to. You then wanted to argue that your equation is correct by bringing up Santa Claus as an example and the equation still is incorrect. "No evidence for Santa Claus" does not equate to "Santa Clause does not exist". There are other arguments you can make to make a case that Santa does not exist, but "No evidence for X = No X" is not it. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe X to be real or not, or whether or not I know X to be real or not, it is simply a matter of your equation being incorrect.
You want to argue this pet peeve of yours go ahead, but if you are too stubborn to see the error in your reasoning, that is not philosophy's fault.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
