No, that's not what I'm saying. I frankly don't think you understand my response, either, else you'd not have written that. I'm saying that there is evidence you'd reject based on your presuppositions.
Bad logic, which makes it worse for a materialist and a positivist. Witness testimony is evidence. No competent historian would say otherwise. Nobody says that, say, the Battle of Gettyburg didn't happen because all the living witnesses are dead.
Now, the original question was demons. Let's debate that, rather than something else, because you're being willingly obtuse, and think snark is logic.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I frankly don't think you understand my response, either, else you'd not have written that. I'm saying that there is evidence you'd reject based on your presuppositions.
Typical positivist.
Here is the question for you. Is witness testimony considered evidence in a court of law?
Bad logic, which makes it worse for a materialist and a positivist. Witness testimony is evidence. No competent historian would say otherwise. Nobody says that, say, the Battle of Gettyburg didn't happen because all the living witnesses are dead.
Now, the original question was demons. Let's debate that, rather than something else, because you're being willingly obtuse, and think snark is logic.
What is the definition of a demon?