(August 22, 2025 at 3:45 am)Belacqua Wrote:(August 22, 2025 at 2:32 am)Sheldon Wrote: You don't offer a criteria of what you think such evidence would be, that exists entirely outside of the remit of science or the natural realm I mean.
Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for?
The claim that science can't examine or detect the non-natural isn't a philosophical claim. It's a religious one that's frequently trotted out by apologists. It's baseless, relying as it does on the mistaken notion that zero isn't a number. If you have a phenomenon with zero natural explanations, then you might have something non-natural. Maybe. To date, religion has thoroughly failed to even identify what non-natural evidence might consist of, much less how anybody would ever apply it, much less anything that they'd apply it to. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to define into being some relevance for their superstitions.
Quote:As I recall you insist on Objective Evidence. I have a broader view of what may increase the credibility of a proposition.
Only with respect to your one particular religion. With respect to any other religion or system of knowledge, you demand even higher evidentiary standards than any atheist. Your epistemic bias couldn't be more obvious if you tried.
Quote:"More successful" at what, exactly?
Explanatory and predictive power. Religion has neither.
