I am not talking about that. I am not talking about what I know but what exists. You may not know wind exist but that does not mean wind does not knock you over. You might know about the wind when it knocks you over but not before. But the wind was still there before you knew about it. So, the wind existed before you knew it existed.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The important bit here is being able to very clearly distinguish between "EXISTS" and "DOES NOT EXIST" (does not qualify as extant).
(IFF) you have no empirical evidence (and cannot demonstrate some logical necessity) of "spiritual-wind" (THEN) you cannot categorize "spiritual-wind" in the "EXISTS" category.
Certainly there might be (currently undiscovered) things that will be said to "EXIST" in the future, and we might even RETROACTIVELY say they "EXISTED" "before" they were "discovered", but up-to-and-until that day when they are empirically verifiable (and or demonstrated to be logically necessary) we cannot say "spiritual-wind" "EXISTS".
Radio waves are a good example of this.
Are you talking about scientifically trying to prove that something is tangible? Sure, within the realm of scientific experiments, as in observational science, of course you are going to go through a process in an attempt to verify, to confirm the evidence regarding alleged claim of the reality of something. I understand you might be alluding to the limitation of the religion of historical science, as seen in the myth of evolution for example in superimposing assumptions into the past which violates the process of observational science which is done in live time, step by step. So, I agree that people should try harder not to conflate observational science with historical science.
Yes. Very good. Yes.
Let's go with "evolution".
Well, a long time ago, it was simply a hypothesis.
Then, as people discovered more evidence and found the hypothesis useful for making predictions, it was upgraded to a theory (a useful hypothesis).
And now that we've been able to observe and document the process of "speciation" it's now an empirically verifiable fact.
Skip to 55 seconds,
Do you know understand carbon dating?
Please explain.
There is a limit in this type of dating method which means it cannot really tell you the age of really old stuff assuming the rate of decay that carbon has, based on the assumption of the rate of decay, depending on how constant or not constant the decay may be at any given time and it becomes very tough scientifically when you are not there to observe it. That is why observational science is not historical science.
We know the approximate age of the cosmos because we can observe light and we know the speed of light, and using that information we can calculate how long it took the light we can see to get where it is now, and that tells us where it came from and where it was 13 billion years ago.
It has nothing to do with "carbon dating".
IMAGE SOURCE
It is widely acknowledged by the scientific community that carbon dating has a wide margin of error.
And this is why it is not often used as a primary dating method.
Another limitation is that it only "works" on biological material, it is never and has never been used to determine the age of ROCKS.