(December 27, 2018 at 5:31 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:(December 27, 2018 at 4:36 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Well, the laws of nature are descriptive. So, to say that something is inexplicable by the laws of nature simply means there are no discernible patterns in its behavior. Furthermore, it would mean there is no discernible patterns in the probabilities of its behavior, etc. Since evidence of existence would require a discernible pattern of some sort, that would imply there cannot be evidence of the existence.
At that point I would question in what sense it can be said to exist.
Maybe, but if it supersedes the natural, then it could potentially dictate said laws and processes. So that brings me back to my original question about what would be considered evidence. What is it I would need to provide to be considered evidence? If I don't know what counts as evidence per the OP, it would be silly for me to assume something, or I would just be told, "Well that's not acceptable evidence."
Evidence is that which is obtained through our senses. We then hypothesize laws to describe the regularities we suspect and test those laws with further observation. Again, the laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are 'dictated' b the behavior of what we can observe.
