Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Redbeard The Pink]

again... it is not beyond the scope of evidence if you use the actual definition of evidence rather than your skewed made up definition... evidence- "something which shows that something else exists or is true..." do you see observable in that definition there? what about empirical? no? ok. moving on.

(Emphasis mine)


That would be "shows," bro. "Shows" is the part of that definition that speaks to evidence being observable, empirical, and sharable amongst peers. "Shows." If you can't show it, you don't know it.

except by counter evidence... or by providing a better explanation for it...

Those things can be applied to explanations of evidence, but evidence stands. Once a piece of evidence is legitimately demonstrated to exist, there is basically no ignoring it, especially not using reason alone.

does show exclude inference? because science infers a lot about what can't be physically shown... sure they infer from empirical evidence, but they infer nonetheless.

(Emphasis Mine)


Exactly. They infer things from evidence, and they're allowed to do that because evidence can be physically shown. Reason can be used to draw conclusions from evidence because the conclusions are backed by evidence and not just reason. If the conclusion is contended, whoever made it has every right to say, "Ok, either offer evidence of your contrary claim, and/or provide a better explanation for the evidence I have here, and/or provide further evidence for why my conclusion is wrong and why yours is better." They're allowed to say that because they have evidence, and evidence does not go away.


You, on the other hand, can be dismissed with little more than the wave of a hand, and yet people are still nice enough to try to reason with you and explain what evidence is and why it stands up to scrutiny. Personally, I'm doing less and less of that because it seems to be a pretty major waste of time.

let me try this one last time... see if I can get you to actually answer it rather than dodging... AHEM... how do you know this (If you can't show it, you don't know it)? can you show that's true?

It's a simple fact of how the word "knowledge" is defined. Knowledge is distinct from belief because knowledge requires evidence, whereas belief does not. Beliefs could be based on evidence, but knowledge is ALWAYS based on evidence, and evidence by definition can be shown. If you cannot demonstrate something, you do not know it; you merely believe it, and if you believe it without evidence, then you believe it on faith. You cannot claim to have knowledge unless you have evidence, and belief without evidence (faith) is the most intellectually dishonest position it's possible to hold.