Hacker News Reader

Your requirement for physical evidence is biased and so discounts the possibility that non-physical evidence may be available.

It's like saying "I believe in X. I won't accept any evidence against X. Since Y is against X, Y doesn't exist"

This means you'd never realise X was wrong in the first place.

View on HN

Except that we've seen plenty of times that "non-physical" evidence doesn't exist and has never been relevant, and usually there's a better physical explanation. So by default, it's fair to assume that non-physical evidence doesn't exist, and if you use that in argument, the burden of proof is yours.

I'm open to accepting non-physical evidence if you can prove it exists. If you can, that would be very interesting, but it's likely that you can't. Again, anecdotes and tradition aren't evidence.

If it's around for 3000 years, show the plentiful "non-physical evidence". If you still need to talk about the "possibility", it's just flim flam BS.

If you think testimonies are evidence, and are making appeals to antiquity/tradition, you just aren't thinking in an educated way. None of that is "evidence".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com