Epistemology. The philosophy of how we know things, how we can acquire knowledge. It basically comes down to what methods of knowledge acquisition are reliable and which arent and how we determine that.
The use of evidence leads to conclusions that can be demonstrated as correct and which themselves lead to more evidence and discoveries of new phenomena. An interwoven web of interrelated knowledge is constructed over time. That is our experience over the course of human history and shapes that which qualifies as evidence along with the best ways to utilise it.
The reason I would not deem patterns in tea leaves (for example) as evidence is because reading patterns in tea leaves has no demonstrable success at telling us anything correct. If tea leaf prophets started consistently predicting events successfully and accurately I would have to reconsider my position on this. But as things stand if a tea leaf reader told me I was going to die next week I’d be pretty unworried because it’s clearly just unevidenced bollocks.
Likewise if a tea leaf reader told me that their readings indicated the existence of an unknowable unseeable omnipotent being sitting outside of time I’d be similarly unimpressed and dismissive of their claims. For the same reason as above. It’s unevidenced bollocks no mattter how convinced the tea leaf reader is of their readings.
So what evidence are you claiming here and why should we treat it any more or less dismissively than tea leaf reading (for example)?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.