Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

In other words, to accept as valid any explanation outside of the base assumption we require evidence ...

Kyuuketsuki, your responses persistently miss the eviscerating horns of Dagda's fantastic point; namely, empirical equivalence. The crucial point is that scientific evidence would be exactly the same under either view; ergo, scientific evidence is incapable of serving as criteria on this particular question. A posteriori heuristic devices are impotent on the issue. So, how does one solve for empirical equivalence?

As far as I can tell "empirical equivalence" is a term bandied about in purely philosophical circles to deal with metaphysical ideas such as the possibility that the universe around us is in some manner unreal or fake (e.g. a computer simulation) ... as such I feel entirely safe in pointing my finger and the funny performing theist and thinking to myself, "What a [expletive deleted]!"

In short it ("empirical equivalence") appears to be yet another pointless metaphysical device and, as I said to our resident Catholic lunatic, "Metaphysics however exclusively concerns itself with that which cannot be proven, cannot be demonstrated, cannot be directly or indirectly observed by any method and can be somewhat cynically defined as a means of justifying that which cannot be demonstrated empirically. Supporters of metaphysics would like it to be taken seriously however, in order to do so, one has to establish a standard by which to measure it, to demonstrate it as fact and there are no standards by which any metaphysical concept can be measured. Despite its name it is not now and never will be a science and is of no use as a tool in the armoury of the real knowledge seeker."

In short "Empirical equivalence " appears to be more pointless metaphysical drivel.

Kyu