It has taken me long enough to reply, but here it goes.
There are a few flaws in this argument for the 'evidence' presented. Firstly, it requires huge amounts of faith. Just because (excuse the atrocious use of metaphors here) it is probable that there is a fly around the bull does not mean that there definitely is a fly around the bull. This is called the argument of the missing middle. There probably is a fly hence there definitely is a fly. The start of the sentence does not justify the conclusion. This leaves us with the fact that the conclusion is based on a wild leap of faith which seems out of step with the scientific justification which you have attempted to dress the belief up as.
Secondly, the argument is based on far too many assumptions. The assumption that the byondiverse is equal to or has some connection to the witnessed universe is completely unfounded. My dreams, for instance, have little barring on reality. Again, we are asked to make a leap of faith in order for the argument to work.
Thirdly (although connected to the second point), we are asked to assume the infallibility of science. Science is completely grounded in the material universe, and its reach does not extend beyond that area. Even if this were not so, science relays completely upon our interpretation of evidence. The weakness of our senses are also the weakness of science, and if our senses believe that this universe is real, then it is a fair bet that so will science.
There are a few flaws in this argument for the 'evidence' presented. Firstly, it requires huge amounts of faith. Just because (excuse the atrocious use of metaphors here) it is probable that there is a fly around the bull does not mean that there definitely is a fly around the bull. This is called the argument of the missing middle. There probably is a fly hence there definitely is a fly. The start of the sentence does not justify the conclusion. This leaves us with the fact that the conclusion is based on a wild leap of faith which seems out of step with the scientific justification which you have attempted to dress the belief up as.
Secondly, the argument is based on far too many assumptions. The assumption that the byondiverse is equal to or has some connection to the witnessed universe is completely unfounded. My dreams, for instance, have little barring on reality. Again, we are asked to make a leap of faith in order for the argument to work.
Thirdly (although connected to the second point), we are asked to assume the infallibility of science. Science is completely grounded in the material universe, and its reach does not extend beyond that area. Even if this were not so, science relays completely upon our interpretation of evidence. The weakness of our senses are also the weakness of science, and if our senses believe that this universe is real, then it is a fair bet that so will science.
