CliveStaples Wrote:???
It's like you aren't even paying attention.
How does the evidentialist know the outcome of those experiments? He or she must assume that her memory of them is reliable.
How does the evidentialist know that the universe didn't come into existence three seconds ago--complete with the evidentialist's memories of countless experiments?
The evidentialist, in citing that evidence, is making certain assumptions about the continuity of history and the accuracy of his or her memory. I am asking how the evidentialist justifies these assumptions.
I know my memory works because I can rip out my keyboard, smash it against my head and make every key pop out. I can then walk out of the room, remember what I have just done, walk back in and find the evidence that proves my memory was accurate and disproves your mad argument. And yes, while all of this happened time WAS TICKING meaning that the universe didn't pop into existence halfway through smashing my keyboard or even after.
Why do not not believe the past was real? If you remember my philosophical point about the present most likely not existing then what does that mean for you? That you simply don't exist????
Prove me wrong. Until then all these baseless assertions are useless.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
