Question(s) for the Religious

[Chas]

There are no doubts about the basis of theology. Without a basis in logic they are worthless. Complex maths is likewise disputed. Conclusions are varied. Sometimes only one is right. Sometimes a few are right. Sometimes there is only one answer.

---

That has nothing in particular to do with the question of evidence.

I understand alchemy - but there is no evidence that it is true.

I understand alchemy. It's bs. Dismissed.

Of course it's to do with evidence. Like I've said to you before, and you failed to respond... why does science refer to empirical and non empirical evidence if, like you say, there is only empirical evidence?
Do you deny logic? Can you not conclude that because A > B, then B < A? Does that kind of logical proof not pay a huge part in your day to day functioning? I can't see how it wouldn't.

Non-empirical evidence in science is that which is theory-driven. Essentially, it is conjecture based on inference from the existing, evidence-based theory.