Here's your problem, Rampant, and the point you are missing. You say, rightfully so, that you have no empirical evidence to suggest condition X. I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the notion that you can then conclude not-X, not without justifying that empiricism is sufficient to observe all of reality. It's an assumption (and one that I operate under the assumption of), but that assertion is not in itself provable empirically - it's an *assumption of empiricism*.
Empiricism is restricted to what we can detect, directly or indirectly, with our senses. How can you possibly know that (using only empirical processes) without asserting some unprovable axiom?
Empiricism is restricted to what we can detect, directly or indirectly, with our senses. How can you possibly know that (using only empirical processes) without asserting some unprovable axiom?
