Some historical events can come and go and not leave a trace of evidence. Where is the evidence for the great San francisco earthquake other than historical documents? I cannot remember the name of the egyptian city I saw documented on the history channel, but a whole city moved from one location to the other and left no trace that it was ever there. As you can see, limiting yourself to physical evidence narrows down what you will accept as reality when reality happens to be much bigger.
Sure, but it has to do with what is being claimed and what isn't. If you were trying to make a case for that earthquake happening, then you'd be expected to provide reasons for accepting that it happened.
The simple fact that it would be hard to produce the physical evidence of it happening does not increase any confidence that it did in fact happen.
And "not physically impossible" doesn't add weight to the claim either.
We really do need to see good reasons for supposing the claim actually happened.
™ Version 4.2
