[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

and in 1200 AD you'd be angry with someone who replied to claims about there being a Pluto with " there is no evidence for that, so I don't believe it exists" an a-plutoist. and you'd believe the correct position was to believe there is a pluto even though there was no evidence because there might be one.
I don't believe you would, or would you ...hmmmm.

You must be careful that you understand the atheist or aplutoist position ... it's purely reactionary to a positive claim by someone who claims that bread is flesh and wine is blood ( or worse). Regardless of their lack of direct evidence, they certainly haven't built up any credibility over the centuries, so we can't even say "well, gee, they've been right so much over the years maybe they're onto something."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1200 AD, I'd would NOT be angry at someone who did not believe in Pluto due to lack of evidence. I WOULD be angry at someone that claimed they had a proof of the non-existence of Pluto. The most philosophically correct position would be that we could neither prove nor disprove Pluto's existence. Now if someone chose to believe in in Pluto despite no evidence for it, that'd be OK so long as they didn't purport to have proof.