Originally Posted by Gambi321
I totally get your point, put you don't seem to get mine.
You talk about things that we can assume and be sure that they exist. We got evidence (trees, sun... lmao)
But if there is no evidence against or for something, then we can't make clear assumptions (god, for example).
Does god exist? Maybe, we got no clear evidence for or against him.
Do trees exist? Yes, they do pretty sure. We got evidence for them (we can feel, see, smell etc. them)
Complete lack of evidence is itself evidence against something. If there's no evidence, then it isn't so.
If I say there is a sunflower growing out of your head, but it is 100% undetectable by any means, will you say "ok, maybe", or will you say "no"? If there is no evidence at all, then why would you concede? If 0 evidence = maybe, then where does having some evidence put you? Still in maybe? How can you prove a negative in that case? How can you prove a positive?
And where is your proof that trees exist? Because some synapses in your brain tell you so? Surely you don't trust your brain enough to allow it to be the arbiter of truth do you? They are forever stuck in "maybe" because in lieu of ABSOLUTE proof we can never be sure, in the same way that in complete absence of proof we can never be sure. If you think maybe is the default position, then surely maybe is the only position (for anything that can't be proven with pure mathematics/is axiomatic).
Originally Posted by pusga
you can have something affect you without you or anyone knowing about it. just because something manifests itself it doesn't necessarily mean it is possible to figure out what it was.
Of course, no one is saying that isn't true.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»