I can agree with that. Two scientists doing the same experiments might not come to the the same conclusions, that’s why in science experiments have to be repeatable and many other scientists involved. Eventually there will be a consensus by most scientists but there always be a few who will cling to their own interpretations because of prior beliefs.
Then there is Rational Evidence. In this view only reason and /or reflection can be used as evidence for proving a proposition to be correct or not.
We have six senses and these are used as the source of empirical evidence. Rational evidence, however, does not demand observational or experimental experiences.
“Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths.” and “Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth”
One of the comments I received in the discussion about my observation that since there were so many Gods, Past and present (about 4200) and it is a fact that many claim they were the only correct one, and other observations such as the inability of all humans to have heard from the ‘correct‘ god one can empirically conclude that god does not exist.
His reponse as a rationalist was: “I do not reject information as received by my senses, but, I do believe that the rational takes precedence over the empirical.
In other words: “what I sense is OK but on the other hand I rationally believe in a god (outside the six senses) and that belief takes precedence over the empirical therefor You are wrong.”
Well I rather stick to empirical evidence since you can make up a “rational reason” such as God must exist because of the complexity of the universe around us, or Thor must exist because we have thunder and lighting. I leave it up to you whether you believe in empirical- or rational evidence and which seems more “true” to you.